Tulsa Public Schools, Oklahoma
| Tulsa Public Schools |
|---|
| Tulsa, Oklahoma |
| District details |
| Superintendent: Dr. Deobrah Gist |
| # of school board members: 7 |
| Website: Link |
Tulsa Public Schools is a school district in Oklahoma that serves the city of Tulsa. The district was the second-largest school district in the state in the 2014–2015 school year and served 39,999 students.[1]
About the district
Tulsa Public Schools is primarily located in Tulsa County with a portion in Osage County in northeastern Oklahoma. The seat of county government in Tulsa County is Tulsa. Tulsa County was home to approximately 639,242 residents between 2010 and 2015, according to the United States Census Bureau.
Demographics
Tulsa County outperformed Oklahoma as a whole in terms of higher education attainment from 2011 to 2015. The United States Census Bureau found that 30.4 percent of its residents aged 25 years and older had attained a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 24.1 percent for Oklahoma as a whole. The median household income in the county was $49,759, compared to $46,879 for the state of Oklahoma. The poverty rate in Tulsa County was 15.9 percent, compared to 16.1 percent for the entire state.[2]
| Racial Demographics, 2015[2] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Race | Tulsa County (%) |
Oklahoma (%) |
| White | 73.4 | 74.8 |
| Black or African American | 10.8 | 7.8 |
| American Indian and Alaska Native | 6.8 | 9.1 |
| Asian | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Two or More Races | 5.9 | 6.0 |
| Hispanic or Latino | 12.1 | 10.1 |
Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.
Superintendent
| This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates. |
Dr. Deborah Gist (July 1, 2015–Present)
The superintendent of Tulsa Public Schools is Dr. Deborah Gist. Unanimously chosen to replace Dr. Keith Ballard by the board of education on February 2, 2015, she officially assumed the role on July 1, 2015. Gist is the first female superintendent in the district's history.[3]
An alumni of the district, Gist holds a B.S. in early childhood education from the University of Oklahoma, an M.A. in elementary education from the University of South Florida, and an M.P.A. from the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. Gist left her appointment as Commissioner of Education for the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to take on this new role; she had been appointed to that position on July 1, 2009.[4] In 2010, Gist was named by TIME as one of the 100 people who most affect the world.[5]
Appointment process
Over two dozen applicants sought to replace Ballard following the announcement of his retirement. The board planned to choose Ballard's replacement by mid-January 2015. Tulsa Classroom Teachers Association expressed a desire that the new superintendent be a former teacher and that he or she be familiar with Tulsa and the school district.[6][7]
Two final candidates were selected to be interviewed on January 23, 2015: Gist and Millard House. However, after the interviews, House withdrew his name from consideration.[8][9]
Gist's appointment did not receive a warm reception from some community members and teachers. Before the meeting at which Gist was appointed, some rallied to ask the board to reconsider its decision due to what they called a lack of transparency in the search process.[3] A group of teachers left the meeting in protest according to a spokesperson for the Tulsa Classroom Teachers Association. Board president Ruth Ann Fate expressed her disappointment at the move and stated that she hoped "they give [Gist] a chance."[10]
Then-superintendent Ballard expressed his confidence in the board saying, "I do believe that these board members care deeply and I do believe in the superintendent search process, that they have been very diligent and have worked very hard at this. And I know they car [sic] deeply about that person who is going to be selected as superintendent, so I have a lot of confidence in this board."[3]
Prior superintendents
| Click [show] on the right to display information about prior Tulsa Public Schools Superintendents. |
|---|
Dr. Keith Ballard (2008–2015)Dr. Keith Ballard was the superintendent of Tulsa Public Schools from 2008 until his retirement in June 2015. He earned a doctorate in educational administration from Oklahoma State University, an administrative certification from the University of Tulsa, an M.Ed. as a reading specialist from Northwestern Oklahoma State University and a B.A. with a double major in psychology and speech from Fort Hays State University.[11] Ballard began his career in education as a teacher in Coweta, Okla., in 1972. In 1974, he took a position as a teacher in Oologah, Okla. He then became assistant high school principal in 1977, assistant superintendent in 1983 and superintendent in 1986. In 1992, he became the superintendent of Claremore Public Schools and also served as an adjunct professor at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa.[11] In 2000, Ballard became the executive director of the Oklahoma State Schools Boards Association. He received many honors during his time as Tulsa's superintendent, including the following:[11]
During his Tulsa tenure, Ballard spoke and wrote extensively on education. He also served on numerous boards including the Oklahoma Superintendents Advisory Council and the Oklahoma Curriculum Improvement Commission. He was also active with the Oklahoma State Legislature and as a husband and father of three children.[11] |
School board elections
The Tulsa School Board is composed of seven members serving four-year terms.[12]
| Tulsa Public Schools | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Member | District | Assumed office |
Term ends |
| Gary Percefull | 1 | 2003 | 2019 |
| Amy Shelton | 2 | 2017 | 2021 |
| Jennettie Marshall | 3 | 2017 | 2021 |
| Shawna Keller | 4 | 2014 | 2018 |
| Cindy Decker | 5 | 2015 | 2020 |
| Ruth Ann Fate | 6 | 1996 | 2020 |
| Suzanne Schreiber | 7 | 2014 | 2018 |
| This officeholder information was last updated on July 6, 2018. Please contact us with any updates. |
Election dates
Members of the Tulsa school board are elected to four-year terms. Each election is held on the second Tuesday in February. Two seats were up for election in February 2017 and two seats were up for election in 2018.
District 5 incumbent Leigh Goodson, who was elected in 2012, resigned following being hired as the next president of Tulsa Community College in May 2014. Her resignation did not come until April 2015, as she stayed on the board in order to help complete the district's search for and hiring of a new superintendent.[13]
Following the announcement the school board put out a call for applicants to be appointed to the remainder of Goodson's term, which was set to expire in 2016.[13] The board chose Dr. Cindy Decker to fill the seat, and she was sworn into office on May 12, 2015.[14]
Public participation in board meetings
The Tulsa school board maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:
| “ |
Citizens are encouraged to attend meetings of the Board of Education and are allowed to address the Board and to comment concerning the Board’s deliberations or on other relevant issues of interest/concern at regular meetings. Public comment will not be permitted at special meetings of the Board of Education unless the meeting is declared to be a public hearing for that purpose. The Board President may interrupt and terminate any presentation not deemed to be in accordance with the guidelines set out by this policy. The Board President may also, after a warning, preclude an individual speaker from addressing the Board on any other agenda item at that meeting and/or at the next regular meeting of the Board of Education for violation of the guidelines set out by this policy Public Comment Guidelines To avoid circumvention of these separate proceedings and to assure fairness to all parties concerned, no person will be allowed to speak regarding the following: • An issue in a pending lawsuit, complaint, or investigation filed with an outside agency, wherein the District, employee(s) or the Board is a party; • A pending grievance; • A pending employee complaint filed with the District or an outside agency; • A complaint against individual employee(s); • An employee disciplinary action including suspension or termination; • A pending pupil disciplinary action including suspension or appeal that may reach the Board. The individual dignity of Board members, District employees, students, and members of the public must be respected by all speakers. Board members, employees, students, nor members of the public will be subjected to verbal abuse. Public comment may take one of two forms: comment concerning items that are on the current agenda or comment concerning issues not on the current agenda. A maximum time limit will be allotted to each individual speaker per meeting – a total of five minutes for speaking to items on the business meeting agenda and five minutes to speak under the Citizens’ Comments portion of the agenda Comments Concerning Items on an Agenda A total time limit of five minutes will apply to each speaker during a meeting regardless of the number of agenda items to which they wish to speak. Each speaker will be called when the item about which they wish to comment is to be considered by the Board and will be called in the order in which they signed to speak. The Board and staff will not dialogue with speakers. Staff will strive to provide answers or resolve any issues/concerns in a timely manner. Comments Concerning Items Not on an Agenda An individual wishing to comment during this portion of a meeting must personally sign and submit a completed request form with all supporting documents to the Clerk of the Board seven calendar days before the meeting at which the individual wishes to speak. The forms are available online or from the Clerk of the Board of Education. Each individual requesting to speak must complete the form and sign verifying they have read instructions regarding citizens’ comments. Generic topics will not be accepted. The topic listed on the request form must be brief but specific enough to satisfy posting requirements under state law. The topic should be worded so an ordinary individual may understand what the topic is about. The topic language submitted by the citizen will be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the attorney for the School District. Individuals will also indicate on the form if they are speaking on their own behalf or on behalf of a group. Speakers will be notified regarding approval or disapproval of their request. The Superintendent or designee will address speakers' specific issues or concerns within 60 days. A total time limit of five minutes during the Citizens’ Comments portion of the agenda will apply to each speaker during a meeting regardless of the number of topics on which the individual requests to speak. Speakers are encouraged to provide the Board with a written outline of their comments to be made available to them before or at the meeting.[15] |
” |
| —Tulsa Public Schools[12] | ||
Budget
From 1993 to 2013, the Tulsa Public school district had an average of $308,849,190 in revenue and $313,579,333 in expenditures, according to the United States Census Bureau's survey of school system finances. The district had a yearly average of $114,415,571 in outstanding debt. The district retired $26,742,286 of its debt and issued $33,852,857 in new debt each year on average.[16]
Revenue
The table below separates the district's revenue into the three sources identified by the agency: local, state, and federal.
| Revenue by Source | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal Year |
Local | State | Federal | Revenue Total | |||||||
| Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue | ||||||
| Click [show] on the right to display the revenue data for prior years. | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | $79,292,000 | 42.06% | $94,513,000 | 50.14% | $14,705,000 | 7.80% | $188,510,000 | ||||
| 1994 | $80,362,000 | 41.11% | $98,567,000 | 50.43% | $16,530,000 | 8.46% | $195,459,000 | ||||
| 1995 | $87,830,000 | 41.59% | $104,670,000 | 49.56% | $18,705,000 | 8.86% | $211,205,000 | ||||
| 1996 | $76,223,000 | 38.31% | $102,562,000 | 51.55% | $20,164,000 | 10.14% | $198,949,000 | ||||
| 1997 | $90,790,000 | 40.57% | $111,492,000 | 49.83% | $21,485,000 | 9.60% | $223,767,000 | ||||
| 1998 | $93,139,000 | 39.89% | $118,143,000 | 50.60% | $22,217,000 | 9.51% | $233,499,000 | ||||
| 1999 | $120,664,000 | 44.16% | $126,119,000 | 46.16% | $26,440,000 | 9.68% | $273,223,000 | ||||
| 2000 | $119,326,000 | 43.63% | $125,149,000 | 45.76% | $29,016,000 | 10.61% | $273,491,000 | ||||
| 2001 | $125,650,000 | 42.36% | $139,168,000 | 46.92% | $31,805,000 | 10.72% | $296,623,000 | ||||
| 2002 | $138,442,000 | 44.70% | $135,651,000 | 43.80% | $35,629,000 | 11.50% | $309,722,000 | ||||
| 2003 | $137,542,000 | 44.10% | $132,596,000 | 42.52% | $41,735,000 | 13.38% | $311,873,000 | ||||
| 2004 | $143,118,000 | 43.37% | $138,835,000 | 42.08% | $48,006,000 | 14.55% | $329,959,000 | ||||
| 2005 | $144,043,000 | 42.48% | $142,484,000 | 42.02% | $52,519,000 | 15.49% | $339,046,000 | ||||
| 2006 | $147,809,000 | 41.95% | $150,907,000 | 42.83% | $53,616,000 | 15.22% | $352,332,000 | ||||
| 2007 | $153,184,000 | 41.22% | $163,638,000 | 44.03% | $54,795,000 | 14.75% | $371,617,000 | ||||
| 2008 | $159,647,000 | 41.25% | $171,010,000 | 44.19% | $56,324,000 | 14.55% | $386,981,000 | ||||
| 2009 | $159,783,000 | 39.83% | $170,245,000 | 42.44% | $71,131,000 | 17.73% | $401,159,000 | ||||
| 2010 | $166,765,000 | 44.19% | $149,546,000 | 39.62% | $61,110,000 | 16.19% | $377,421,000 |
| 2011 | $166,953,000 | 41.91% | $155,238,000 | 38.97% | $76,180,000 | 19.12% | $398,371,000 |
| 2012 | $169,805,000 | 41.30% | $160,802,000 | 39.11% | $80,511,000 | 19.58% | $411,118,000 |
| 2013 | $176,606,000 | 43.99% | $161,472,000 | 40.22% | $63,430,000 | 15.80% | $401,508,000 |
| Avg. | $130,332,048 | 42.09% | $135,847,952 | 44.89% | $42,669,190 | 13.01% | $308,849,190 |
Expenditures
The table below separates the district's expenditures into five categories identified by the agency:
- Instruction: operation expenditures, state payments on behalf of the district for instruction and benefits, and retirement system transfers
- Support Services: support services, food services, and retirement system transfers for support service staff
- Capital Spending: capital outlay expenditures (i.e., construction, land or facilities purchases, and equipment purchases)
- Debt & Gov. Payments: payments to state and local governments and interest on school system debt
- Other: all other non-K-12 programs, except food services
| Expenditures by Category | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal Year |
Instruction | Support Services | Capital Spending | Debt & Gov. Payments | Other | Budget Total | |||||
| Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | ||
| Click [show] on the right to display the expenditure data for prior years. | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | $96,263,000 | 50.35% | $79,858,000 | 41.77% | $12,236,000 | 6.40% | $1,710,000 | 0.89% | $1,110,000 | 0.58% | $191,177,000 |
| 1994 | $98,792,000 | 51.54% | $78,025,000 | 40.71% | $8,950,000 | 4.67% | $4,798,000 | 2.50% | $1,109,000 | 0.58% | $191,674,000 |
| 1995 | $103,342,000 | 51.37% | $87,601,000 | 43.54% | $6,401,000 | 3.18% | $2,662,000 | 1.32% | $1,176,000 | 0.58% | $201,182,000 |
| 1996 | $106,154,000 | 52.90% | $87,690,000 | 43.70% | $3,262,000 | 1.63% | $2,270,000 | 1.13% | $1,295,000 | 0.65% | $200,671,000 |
| 1997 | $111,680,000 | 49.53% | $91,898,000 | 40.76% | $18,402,000 | 8.16% | $2,053,000 | 0.91% | $1,440,000 | 0.64% | $225,473,000 |
| 1998 | $115,889,000 | 41.30% | $95,504,000 | 34.03% | $62,784,000 | 22.37% | $5,280,000 | 1.88% | $1,166,000 | 0.42% | $280,623,000 |
| 1999 | $124,939,000 | 47.85% | $105,555,000 | 40.42% | $24,588,000 | 9.42% | $5,129,000 | 1.96% | $914,000 | 0.35% | $261,125,000 |
| 2000 | $123,989,000 | 45.79% | $117,191,000 | 43.28% | $20,179,000 | 7.45% | $7,048,000 | 2.60% | $2,349,000 | 0.87% | $270,756,000 |
| 2001 | $136,856,000 | 44.40% | $122,986,000 | 39.90% | $43,490,000 | 14.11% | $3,641,000 | 1.18% | $1,280,000 | 0.42% | $308,253,000 |
| 2002 | $144,665,000 | 40.99% | $130,406,000 | 36.95% | $70,108,000 | 19.86% | $6,448,000 | 1.83% | $1,331,000 | 0.38% | $352,958,000 |
| 2003 | $137,218,000 | 47.30% | $124,491,000 | 42.92% | $19,081,000 | 6.58% | $6,535,000 | 2.25% | $2,748,000 | 0.95% | $290,073,000 |
| 2004 | $144,426,000 | 47.92% | $128,874,000 | 42.76% | $20,518,000 | 6.81% | $4,690,000 | 1.56% | $2,851,000 | 0.95% | $301,359,000 |
| 2005 | $151,831,000 | 44.36% | $140,776,000 | 41.13% | $43,600,000 | 12.74% | $4,118,000 | 1.20% | $1,981,000 | 0.58% | $342,306,000 |
| 2006 | $163,966,000 | 43.78% | $149,758,000 | 39.99% | $53,954,000 | 14.41% | $4,447,000 | 1.19% | $2,366,000 | 0.63% | $374,491,000 |
| 2007 | $175,842,000 | 47.22% | $156,180,000 | 41.94% | $31,849,000 | 8.55% | $4,987,000 | 1.34% | $3,533,000 | 0.95% | $372,391,000 |
| 2008 | $182,597,000 | 47.56% | $156,999,000 | 40.89% | $37,134,000 | 9.67% | $4,101,000 | 1.07% | $3,133,000 | 0.82% | $383,964,000 |
| 2009 | $183,587,000 | 46.50% | $163,913,000 | 41.52% | $38,516,000 | 9.76% | $5,796,000 | 1.47% | $2,964,000 | 0.75% | $394,776,000 |
| 2010 | $189,597,000 | 48.30% | $167,147,000 | 42.58% | $23,678,000 | 6.03% | $9,320,000 | 2.37% | $2,788,000 | 0.71% | $392,530,000 |
| 2011 | $185,792,000 | 41.77% | $164,963,000 | 37.08% | $83,098,000 | 18.68% | $5,280,000 | 1.19% | $5,697,000 | 1.28% | $444,830,000 |
| 2012 | $171,582,000 | 42.95% | $175,672,000 | 43.97% | $43,070,000 | 10.78% | $3,407,000 | 0.85% | $5,807,000 | 1.45% | $399,538,000 |
| 2013 | $172,142,000 | 42.50% | $178,417,000 | 44.05% | $45,332,000 | 11.19% | $3,589,000 | 0.89% | $5,536,000 | 1.37% | $405,016,000 |
| Avg. | $143,864,238 | 46.48% | $128,757,333 | 41.14% | $33,820,476 | 10.12% | $4,633,762 | 1.50% | $2,503,524 | 0.76% | $313,579,333 |
Debt
The table below shows the amount of debt retired, issued, and outstanding in the district for each year.
| Debt | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal Year |
Retired | Issued | Outstanding |
| Click [show] on the right to display the debt data for prior years. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | $1,710,000 | $20,000,000 | $36,245,000 |
| 1994 | $2,960,000 | $0 | $33,285,000 |
| 1995 | $4,910,000 | $0 | $28,375,000 |
| 1996 | $4,985,000 | $0 | $23,390,000 |
| 1997 | $3,285,000 | $42,000,000 | $62,105,000 |
| 1998 | $3,035,000 | $43,500,000 | $102,570,000 |
| 1999 | $13,535,000 | $9,000,000 | $98,035,000 |
| 2000 | $24,410,000 | $15,000,000 | $88,625,000 |
| 2001 | $26,625,000 | $46,750,000 | $108,750,000 |
| 2002 | $31,375,000 | $67,500,000 | $144,875,000 |
| 2003 | $31,625,000 | $20,000,000 | $133,250,000 |
| 2004 | $34,800,000 | $20,000,000 | $118,450,000 |
| 2005 | $37,550,000 | $47,000,000 | $127,900,000 |
| 2006 | $38,800,000 | $59,460,000 | $148,560,000 |
| 2007 | $38,850,000 | $32,355,000 | $142,065,000 |
| 2008 | $36,615,000 | $40,000,000 | $145,450,000 |
| 2009 | $39,615,000 | $40,000,000 | $148,335,000 |
| 2010 | $44,615,000 | $78,345,000 | $182,065,000 |
| 2011 | $43,490,000 | $40,000,000 | $178,575,000 |
| 2012 | $48,530,000 | $42,000,000 | $177,045,000 |
| 2013 | $50,268,000 | $48,000,000 | $174,777,000 |
| Avg. | $26,742,286 | $33,852,857 | $114,415,571 |
Teacher salaries
Teacher salaries are categorized based on higher education achievement, professional development, and years of service. A teacher with a bachelor's degree can earn higher salaries by pursuing graduate courses. The salary schedule also accounts for graduate degrees by providing higher starting salaries and greater potential salaries. The following table details the salary schedule for the 2013-2014 school year:[17]
| Tulsa Teacher Salaries | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salary structure | Minimum salary ($) | Maximum salary ($) | |||
| B.A. | 32,900 | 47,630 | |||
| M.A. | 33,956 | 50,936 | |||
| M.A. + 30 | 34,964 | 54,544 | |||
| M.A. + 60 | 36,005 | 56,175 | |||
| D | 37,105 | 57,271 | |||
Academic performance
The Oklahoma Department of Education issues an annual A-F School Report Card for each school district in the state. This annual report takes into account student achievement, overall student growth, and bottom quartile student growth. The student achievement category accounts for 50 percent of the grading formula and tracks student performance on standardized tests in five categories. These testing categories are English, math, science, U.S. history, and writing. The overall student growth category accounts for 25 percent of the grading formula and compares test results from the previous year to the current year. The bottom quartile student growth accounts for 25 percent of the grading formula and analyzes progress by students in the bottom 25 percent of test performers from the previous year.
Tulsa Public Schools received an overall grade of 59 for an F on the 2012-2013 report card.[18] The state of Oklahoma received an overall grade of 71 for a C- on the 2012-2013 report card.[19] The following tables compare the 2012-2013 A-F School Report Card from Oklahoma City Public Schools to the state's report card:[20]
Student Achievement
| Student Achievement results, 2012-2013 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | District Performance Index | State Performance Index | District Letter Grade | State Letter Grade |
| Reading/English/English III | 57 | 73 | F | C |
| Math/Algebra I/Algebra II/Geometry | 55 | 72 | F | C |
| Science/Biology I | 37 | 54 | F | F |
| U.S. History | 58 | 77 | F | C |
| Writing | 43 | 56 | F | F |
| Overall Grade | 53 | 69 | F | D |
| Overall Student Growth results, 2012-2013 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | District Performance Index | State Performance Index | District Letter Grade | State Letter Grade |
| Reading/English II | 69 | 79 | D | C |
| Math/Algebra I | 66 | 78 | D | C |
| Overall Grade | 67 | 79 | D | C |
| Bottom Quartile Student Growth results, 2012-2013 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | District Performance Index | State Performance Index | District Letter Grade | State Letter Grade |
| Reading/English II | 56 | 59 | F | F |
| Math/Algebra I | 53 | 59 | F | F |
| Overall Grade | 55 | 59 | F | F |
Issues
Testing reduction
In August 2015, Superintendent Gist announced a 54 percent reduction in time spent on district-required testing at Tulsa Public Schools. The district had formed an Assessment Study Group that met five times in January 2015 to discuss the rate of testing in the district; Gist attended two of those meetings. The implemented changes sought to "curb over-testing by reducing the frequency of some tests, eliminating one entirely, and by removing the district requirement to implement others." Gist described the testing reductions, saying, "These decisions were really based on that careful analysis to say where are the places where this information already gathered in another way."[21][22][23]
Overcrowding
Tulsa Public Schools addressed overcrowding in many of its schools. Since the school district began an ongoing efficiency initiative known as Project Schoolhouse, it shut down 14 school buildings with low enrollment. This left many schools operating at higher occupancy rates. District leaders said they needed to pay close attention to ensure that schools didn't cross the line between full and overcapacity. Each winter since Project Schoolhouse began, district administrators have conducted an annual site capacity review and the Tulsa school board has subsequently approved adjustments to school boundaries to help balance out student enrollments among sites. In 2013, Tulsa Public Schools reopened a closed elementary school building as a 7th grade center to help alleviate unexpected crowding at McLain Junior High School. Former Superintendent Keith Ballard believed that Project Schoolhouse was working and that the district could have been eligible to pursue a new bond issue to address capital needs, including classroom additions, in late 2014 or early 2015.[24]
Contact information
![]()
Tulsa Public Schools
3027 S. New Haven Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74114-6131
Phone: (918)-746-6517
See also
| Oklahoma | School Board Elections | News and Analysis |
|---|---|---|
External links
- Tulsa Public Schools
- Tulsa County
- Oklahoma State Department of Education
- Oklahoma State School Board Association
- Tulsa Classroom Teachers Association
Footnotes
- ↑ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, "Common Core of Data, file ccd_lea_052_1414_w_0216161a, 2014-2015," accessed November 16, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedCensus - ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 NewsOn6.com, "Tulsa School Board Hires Gist As Superintendent," February 3, 2015
- ↑ Rhode Island Department of Education, "Biography," accessed November 3, 2012
- ↑ TIME, "The 2010 TIME 100 - Deborah Gist," April 29, 2010
- ↑ Tulsa Public Schools, "Supt. Biography," accessed January 19, 2014
- ↑ NewsOn6.com, "Tulsa Public School Board, Teachers Give Wish List For New Superintendent," November 18, 2014
- ↑ NewsOn6.com, "Candidate For Tulsa School Superintendent Withdraws," January 30, 2015
- ↑ NewsOn6.com, "Tulsa Public Schools Interviews Final Candidates," January 23, 2015
- ↑ Providence Journal, "Raimondo to involve public in choosing Gist’s successor as R.I. education commissioner," February 3, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Tulsa Public Schools, "Supt. Biography," accessed January 19, 2014
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Tulsa Public Schools, "Policy Manual," accessed January 19, 2014
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Tulsa World, "Tulsa World Editorial: Leigh Goodson leaves Tulsa school board with our admiration," April 24, 2015
- ↑ Tulsa Public Schools, "5/12/15 - Special Meeting: Agenda," accessed June 2, 2015
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Public School System Finances: Historical Data," accessed December 1, 2015
- ↑ Tulsa Public Schools, "Salary Schedules," accessed January 19, 2014
- ↑ Oklahoma Department of Education, "A-F Report Card: Tulsa Public Schools," accessed February 4, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ Oklahoma Department of Education, "A-F Report Card: Statewide," accessed February 3, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ Oklahoma Department of Education, "A-F School Report Cards," accessed February 3, 2014
- ↑ KJRH.com, "Tulsa Superintendent Deborah Gist announces decrease in district-required testing," August 3, 2015
- ↑ Tulsa's Channel 8 KTUL, "Reduction in Testing Means More Control for Teachers," August 4, 2015
- ↑ Public Radio Tulsa, "Testing to be Trimmed in TPS," August 4, 2015
- ↑ Tulsa World, "Tulsa Public Schools considering options to alleviate crowding," accessed January 16, 2014
| |||||
