Skip to main content

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 opinion, they flatly trounce both the New Hampshire public school she was in from K-3, and the expensive Montessori she attended for grade 4), but they also offered a blended learning environment. This meant our only-child could go interact with other kids her age, receive in person instruction from teachers, have recess, and do all the other normal school things, but it also meant that when we couldn’t get to school - whether because we were traveling or because an infectious disease caused the state to shut down every school under its purview - she could complete her lessons online. She could keep pace with her peers (or as it turns out, outpace many of them, since Epic allows bright students to learn at an accelerated rate), maintain her attendance, and most importantly, continue to LEARN. You know, that thing we used to expect schools to provide? Education? 

So, who could possibly be better situated to withstand Covid-19 than Epic? Someone outside the state of Oklahoma, apparently. The email we received said that: 

While EPIC is a virtual school and is uniquely positioned to deliver instruction virtually to all of our students, the State Board of Education did not make a distinction among Oklahoma public schools in its order, so this closure does apply to EPIC Charter Schools and both its one-on-one and blended learning center programs. This means we are being instructed by the state to not provide instruction during the window of the closure.

One could believe that this was simply an oversight. Even though Epic is now the third largest school district in the state, perhaps the Board of Education forgot to account for their unique circumstances. 

One could also believe it's an instance of state education bureaucracy prioritizing “fairness and equality” — not allowing children who are well situated to continue their education to do so, because other children are not in the same position, and the result would not be fair to the public school children (or, more to the point, fair to the public schools). One could understand not wanting to deal with outraged parents who learn that their neighbor’s children are still learning despite the panic. 

The flipside is the outrage of parents whose children are well positioned to continue their education uninterrupted, yet are being denied the opportunity because other parents made different choices - as though everyone should always be shielded from the consequences of their choices. I wonder if the Board would ban public schools from operating if there was a massive and long-term disruption to the electrical system or the internet. 

Is it possible that the education establishment didn’t want public schools to look any worse than they already do when compared to charter schools? Perhaps they fear a slew of students would switch to virtual charters for the remainder of the year, find out it’s a pretty good deal, and decide to stick around next year.  

We received an update, letting us know that our child was allowed to continue her online studies during the shutdown, but she did not have to. (We conveniently forgot to pass that last bit on to her.) No direct instruction - even virtual instruction - will be allowed. (Is there a fear that corona will mutate into a computer virus and then back again?) Assignments completed during the mandatory education blackout period will be graded, but not until the blackout is over.

So, when you’re out there shopping for the last scrap of toilet paper, don’t forget to pick up some used text books. It seems homeschool is the only way the establishment will allow uninterrupted education, in order to preserve their hallowed traditional system.

Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@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

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v...
Read more

AG Hunter Lowers Boom on Barrier to Entry; Legislature Should Follow His Lead

Even as the Oklahoma Supreme Court  struck down  a recent alcohol distribution law, the Attorney General paved the way for the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Law Enforcement Commission (ABLE) to remove an obstacle from the expansion of liquor store competition - finding that Oklahoma’s five-year in-state residency requirement before one can own a liquor store likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  The AG’s  opinion , issued at the end of December, informs the state’s alcohol commission that portions of the state constitution (Article 28A, Section 4(A) & (B)) are unenforceable. These provisions require that ABLE issue a Retail Spirits License or Wine and Spirits Wholesaler License only to someone who has been a resident of Oklahoma for the previous five years. Presumably ABLE, who requested the opinion, will now begin issuing licenses to otherwise qualified applicants regardless of how long they have lived in Okl...
Read more

Our Black-Robed Legislators on the Oklahoma Supreme Court

W hen   the nine lawyers on the Oklahoma Supreme Court meet to hear a case, no legislation is safe. That's because the justices on the Supreme Court regularly act as though they are lawmakers instead of judges. My most recent paper , Legislators in Black Robes: Unelected Lawmaking by the Oklahoma Supreme Court , explains how the justices achieve this lawmaking.  When the justices decide their mission is to take out a law, they weaponize otherwise mundane provisions of the state constitution (the single subject rule and the ban on special laws, for example) to strike the law down. If that tool is too blunt of an instrument for their purpose, they declare a law “ambiguous” and go about re-writing it from the bench. They justify the re-writing as an attempt to conjure the “intent” of the statute, regardless of what the actual words on the page say. If the law the justices want to strike down isn’t ripe for review, no problem. The Court has invented a concept called “pub...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more