Skip to main content

A Teacher Walkout Leader’s Distorted View of School Choice


The Tulsa World recently published a piece by a leader of the teacher walkout a few years ago predictably opposing Governor Stitt’s proposal to expand the Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship program. There is much to take issue with in the piece, which is full of disinformation, but perhaps the most preposterous claim is the following:

    You’ve probably also heard of “school choice.” The term is extremely misleading because it implies that parents don’t have a choice, when the reality is every parent already has school choice for their child. Parents can choose to send their child to a public school, private school, religious school or even home school. School choice isn’t about giving parents more options. It’s about using taxpayer dollars to give wealthy families a discount on their choice of school. (emphasis added)

Try telling that to the truancy officer.

The model of public education in America is that we assign every student to a government school based on the part of town they live in, and if they don’t show up, we threaten their parents with criminal prosecution. Then we sit back and wonder why public schools rarely show improvement no matter how much money we pour into them.

It’s simple. When people are required to buy your product under the threat of jail, you don’t have much incentive to attract them with quality.

Or try telling this “choice” canard to children who live in North Tulsa. The government school district that “serves” them (more accurately, fails them) is well-funded per pupil compared to the average across the state (Tulsa Public Schools somehow still manages to face a $20 million deficit this year). In 2018, for example, TPS spent $14,248 per student when accounting for all revenue sources, compared to a state average of $10,793. But for kids on the North side, this above-average funding must be cold comfort. Central High School, for example, has an F-rating from the State Department of Education, and the 4-year graduation rate is only 69 percent.

The rest of the student body is hardly better off: only 2.3 percent of all Central students made a grade-level proficient score. There may be many factors that contribute to these dismal—borderline criminal—results. But a thriving, high quality public school isn’t one of them.

Do the parents of these students feel like they have the choice the teacher who walked out on kids two years ago claims they have? If so, why aren’t they exercising it?

What’s more, recent actions reveal the view of TPS leadership when it comes to giving more options to poor students in failing schools. On the recommendation of district leadership, the Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education recently rejected the application of an innovative charter school that is trying to open practically across the street from Central High School.

Choice for Me, but Not for Thee
The truth is, we do already have school choice, but only for those who are wealthy enough to pay for private school or to purchase a home in a “good” public school district. That leaves a lot of kids behind.

Most parents in our system have school choice the same way they have private jet choice. After all, no one is stopping them from buying a G5.

The walkout teacher argues that the Equal Opportunity Tax Credit’s relatively high upper income limit to receive a scholarship (around $140,000 for a family of four) favors the privileged at the expense of average students. He claims that because the scholarshipsonly pay for a fraction of what it actually costs to [sic] these private and religious schools” they are “nothing but a scam to give wealthy families discounts on the education of their choosing.”

I find the income threshold to be a positive feature of the program, not a defect, as it allows more students to access the program. But even granting the premise that only low income children should be offered an escape from government schools, the facts do not back up this criticism of the scholarship program. 

If critics of the program have any evidence to back their oft-repeated talking point that families in the high income range are the primary beneficiaries of the scholarship program, they should cite it. They never do. That’s because a claim without evidence is good enough if you are trying to mislead and scare people into preserving a failed status quo. 

The organizations who administer these scholarships have the actual numbers, and they tell a different story. The Opportunity Scholarship Fund, for example, reports that 52% of its scholarship students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, meaning around $47,000 for a family of four.

The education establishment also claims the scholarship program takes money out of public schools. It does no such thing.

The truth, according to a study by economists at Oklahoma City University, is that the state actually saves $1.39 for every $1 in tax credits it gives out under the program. If you include all funding sources, the fiscal return is even higher, at $2.91 to $1.

How can this be? The answer is that we spend so much money per pupil in this state that the money saved by a student exiting the public school system exceeds the tax credit given out to fund his scholarship.

Think about that next time you hear that Oklahoma does not “fully fund” public education. It is cheaper to pay a student to attend a private school than to educate them in a government school.

When public education activists like the walkout teacher tell us we need to “support education,” we should inquire as to what, exactly, they mean by that. Too often, when they talk—and when they walk—they reveal their priority to be the maintenance of a failing status quo and their own professional comfort, not the improvement of children’s education.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at The 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

In Response to COVID-19, the Oklahoma Supreme Court Claims Power to “Suspend” Valid Laws

I have referred often to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s “lawmaking” or to justices acting like “legislators in black robes” as rhetorical devices intended to illustrate a point about judicial activism. I never imagined the Court would go so far as to actually begin legislating. With its latest actions, however, it seems the Court views the exigencies created by our current public health woes as a greenlight to literally change the law in Oklahoma.
On Friday of last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued (and the Court of Criminal Appeals signed off on) an “Emergency Joint Order” declaring that “all deadlines and procedures whether prescribed by statute, rule or order in any civil, juvenile or criminal case, shall be suspended through May 15, 2020” due to COVID-19 (emphasis added). The Court made this suspension specifically applicable to statutes of limitation in all civil cases. The Court had, on March 16, issued a similar order suspending deadlines for 30 days.
These Emergency Orders w…

Smart People in Charge Screwing Up: Panic over COVID-19

Could the economic shutdown cure for coronavirus be worse than the disease? It appears more likely every day.
As an undergraduate at Texas A&M, I was required to read an essay by Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the geodesic dome and a bona fide genius. I recall Fuller complaining that we hadn’t built railroad tracks with stainless steel, since it doesn’t rust. In commenting on the piece, I pointed out that stainless steel was costly compared to regular steel and Fuller failed to recognize this. It’s more cost effective to use regular steel tracks, which wear out long before they rust away, than to use stainless, despite the likelihood that stainless would wear longer.
We economists point out the reality that there are always costs when choices are made (i.e., scarcity always exists, thus the “dismal science” moniker). Costs might not always be easy to identify, but one thing is absolutely certain, failure to account for the fact that actions and choices always have consequences, pos…

Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education

Would we grant Devon Energy a government-enforced veto over whether its competitors should be issued drilling permits? Would we think it acceptable for the government to require new drug applicants to first obtain approval from Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson before applying for FDA approval? Of course not. Generally speaking, we are not in favor of foxes guarding hen houses, and our laws tend to reflect that instinct.
Nevertheless, when it comes to deciding who can and cannot become a lawyer, nearly all states (including Oklahoma) have delegated the design of their hen house security plan to the fox’s self-interested trade association, the American Bar Association (ABA). This is the argument of my policy analysis released today, Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education.
The ABA, a private trade association for lawyers, has a government-enforced monopoly over legal education as the only approved accreditor of law schools in…

A Cure Withheld: Education Establishment Kneecapping Distance Learning Already in Place

“We have the cure. We know it works. You’ve used it before. But you’re not allowed to use it now.”
Imagine if your government - federal, state, or local - said those words to you regarding the corona virus. You would be justifiably outraged. If you could access the cure, you would probably defy the ban on its use.
Two weeks ago my wife received an email from my step-daughter’s school. Among the expected notices that in-school instruction would be canceled for a least a few weeks due to corona virus, there was a nasty surprise. “Neither on-site nor virtual [i.e., remote, online and with no person-to-person contact] instruction can occur during the state's window of school closures.” (Emphasis added.) Note that this decision was made by the state Board of Education, not by Epic, the statewide virtual charter school we have chosen.
You see, when we moved to Oklahoma, my wife and I chose Epic because they not only seemed like they would do a better job teaching our kid (so far, in my opi…