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

Eat Your Vegetables: City Council Considers A Well-Disguised Sin Tax

The Oklahoma City Council is considering a well-disguised sin tax. They call it a Healthy Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, but the effect is the same. It limits new dollar stores in the specified neighborhood. The ostensible goal is to create a welcoming environment for grocery stores selling fresh meat and produce. But it accomplishes this goal by giving existing dollar stores a monopoly, which will raise prices, and punish residents for shopping at the purveyors of (allegedly nothing but) junk food, instead of subsisting on fresh, organic kale smoothies like good little citizens. Why would the Council intentionally restrict the supply of stores where many of their residents buy basic household goods and food? Several possibilities present themselves, though none are sound.   A fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of supply and demand. Economists call the current state of the neighborhood a contestable market: dollar stores choose low prices because the mere p...
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

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...
Read more

Why Oklahoma's Method for Selecting Judges Is a Bad Idea

The state of Oklahoma selects supreme court justices using a system known as the Missouri Plan, which is a form of merit selection. Advocates paint a rosy picture of the plan, claiming that it is a more sophisticated system than the federal model or the election model and that it strikes the perfect balance between the other two systems. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Here is how the plan works: the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a board of individuals who review candidates for vacancies on the supreme court, selects three candidates to present to the governor. The governor must select one of these candidates. If he does not, after 60 days, the Chief Justice selects one of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Once on the court, justices face an uncontested “retention election” every six years; however, not one justice has been voted off the court in the half century that this system has been in place. On its face this system might seem like a good idea, but...
Read more