Tulsa Public Schools, Oklahoma

Tulsa Public Schools
Tulsa, Oklahoma
District details
Superintendent: Deborah 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.

About the district

Tulsa Public Schools is primarily located in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

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.

Racial Demographics, 2015
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.

Deborah Gist is the superintendent of Tulsa Public Schools. Gist was appointed superintendent in July 2015. Gist's previous career experience includes working as a senior policy analyst for the United States Department of Education, superintendent of the District of Columbia Board of Education, and Rhode Island Commissioner of Education.

Past superintendents

• Keith Ballard was the superintendent of Tulsa Public Schools from 2008 to 2015. Ballard's previous career experience included working as a teacher, assistant high school principal, and adjunct professor at Oral Roberts University.

School board elections

The Tulsa School Board is composed of seven members serving four-year terms.

Office	Name	Date assumed office
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 1	Stacey Woolley	2019
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 2	Calvin Moniz	April 15, 2024
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 3	Kyra Carby	April 7, 2025
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 4	E'Lena Ashley	May 2, 2022
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 5	John Croisant	July 7, 2020
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 6	Sarah Smith	April 15, 2024
Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education District 7	Susan Lamkin	May 2, 2022

This officeholder information was last updated on October 23, 2020. Please contact us with any updates.

Election dates

See also: Tulsa Public Schools elections in 2019 and 2020

Members of the Tulsa school board are elected to four-year terms.

A primary election was scheduled for February 11, 2020. A general election was scheduled for June 30, 2020. The general election was originally scheduled to take place on April 7, 2020, but was moved amid concerns about the coronavirus pandemic.

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.

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. The board chose Dr. Cindy Decker to fill the seat, and she was sworn into office on May 12, 2015.

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 School board policies, state law, and federal law establish separate and distinct procedures and forums for the resolution of employee grievances, employee complaints, employee suspensions and terminations, complaints against individual employees, pupil suspensions and appeals, political campaigns, and litigation. 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 Individuals may comment on business items or recommendations appearing under the Action or Information portions of a regular meeting agenda. Requests to comment must be made by submitting a completed form for each topic. Forms are available from the Board Clerk before the beginning of each meeting. Requests will be accepted at any time up to the consideration of the Consent Agenda portion of the meeting. Each individual requesting to speak must personally complete the form listing their name and contact information, and sign verifying they have read the instructions regarding comments. The individual will also indicate on the form if they are speaking on their own behalf or on behalf of a group and whether or not they support or oppose the item (as applicable). 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. 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 The agenda for each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board will include an item designated “Citizens’ Comments.” The “Citizens’ Comments” portion of the agenda will be reserved for comments concerning issues not otherwise appearing on an agenda. This portion of the agenda is reserved to provide citizens an opportunity to address the Board of Education on issues affecting the District and is not intended to provide a forum for commercial, political or similar topics. 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.	”
—Tulsa Public Schools

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.

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:

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. The state of Oklahoma received an overall grade of 71 for a C- on the 2012-2013 report card. The following tables compare the 2012-2013 A-F School Report Card from Oklahoma City Public Schools to the state's report card:

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."

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.

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
List of school districts in Oklahoma School board elections in Oklahoma Public education in Oklahoma	School board elections, 2026 Oklahoma school board elections, 2026	School board election data analysis, 2025 United States school shootings, 1990-present

External links

• Tulsa Public Schools
• Tulsa County
• Oklahoma State Department of Education
• Oklahoma State School Board Association
• Tulsa Classroom Teachers Association

Footnotes