Skip to main content

COVID-19 Proves Our Schools Are Social Service Centers First, Education Institutions Second


There is no way the 180-day (or 1,080 hours) school year can be completed by the end of previously established school calendars for this year given the fact that spring break has now already been effectively extended an additional two weeks. One option would have been to extend the school year into the summer. Given the level of family togetherness being experienced now, and the fact that incomes are being lost and many would be interested in making up the losses, it’s not unreasonable to expect vacation plans to be radically remade or canceled anyway. Instead, Oklahoma’s State Board of Education precipitously closed the schools and did not call for an extension of end-of-school dates. Thus, the summer option has been foreclosed.

The State Board is within its rights. Oklahoma statutes (70 O.S. § 1-109 E) state, “A school district may maintain school for less than a full school year only when conditions beyond the control of school authorities make the maintenance of the term impossible and the State Board of Education has been apprised and has expressed concurrence in writing.”

So on March 25th, the State Board of Education effectively suspended school activities in school buildings for the rest of the year by closing school buildings. Emergency rules have been promulgated that mandate all school districts implement distance learning. Undoubtedly, this has brought about a good deal of frenetic, and very real, work activity in districts that had never planned for widespread distance learning, have no expertise in distance learning, and are in the unenviable position of having to start effectively from zero to get something up and running.

Nonetheless, an official State Department of Education document says “Districts are expected to continue providing learning opportunities for students through the end of the school year and thereby afford students the opportunity to earn grades.” That vague statement doesn’t mean anything like truly rigorous learning will occur. The fact is that a significant portion of the current school year is being lost. While distance learning has proved effective, this is true when the people implementing it have had time to get it right. The public schools, in an emergency, have not had that time. 

Teachers throughout the state would be introducing new material to students right now. New assignments to better cement content in students’ minds, and to assess their progress, would have been given. Some of the loss in learning can be made up next year. Much of the beginning of any school year is review, but graduating seniors have now had their last crucial year in high school cut short. And there is no denying that the suspension of school for over two months represents an educational setback in a state that really cannot afford any educational setbacks.

Meanwhile, schools continue to deliver meals. In fact, odds are that the hardest-working people at our schools right now are food preparers and those who are passing out the food. While it’s true that food is an absolute basic necessity while learning is not, it is also true that the survival of our civilization turns on education. 

As the philosopher/political theorist Hannah Arendt put it, “Every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians – we call them ‘children’.” And as economist Thomas Sowell has put it, “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.”

It is this mission, expressed so bluntly by Sowell, to civilize and educate each new generation, that the public school system was originally organized to accomplish. Given what we spend on them, they do not do it well, even when they aren’t being shut down by strikes and virus panics. But it seems they do a pretty good job of keeping the food mission open, no matter what. 

And this is the problem that the Wuhan virus has brought into stark relief. The public education system really should have only one mission – to educate kids – and should focus on that mission to the exclusion of all else. And if it were focused on that mission, perhaps the State Board would have extended school into the summer.

Instead, we have given public schools the mission of providing nutrition, the mission of providing transportation, the mission of providing mental health services, the mission of providing general health services, the mission of providing daycare (pre-K), and the mission of providing local entertainments. Public schools’ education mission has become secondary, at best, and it shows. So they’re still open to deliver meals, but they’re effectively closed to deliver educational content.

Byron Schlomach is Director of 1889 Institute. He can be contacted at bschlomach@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...

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...

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...

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...