Skip to main content

Praise and Criticism of Governor Stitt’s Plan for Reopening Schools


Governor Stitt recently held a press conference to announce his plans for opening Oklahoma’s schools in the face of fear and loathing by many regarding Covid-19. There is a great deal of paranoia surrounding this disease, which the 1889 Institute has attempted to moderate by posting accurate information, in contrast to media more interested in sensation. Despite the fear, Governor Stitt is admirably insisting that schools should open. He cannot overrule local school boards and mandate that schools reopen, and even if he could, it would be impolitic not to take steps to reassure parents, teachers, students, and administrators that schools can be opened and attended safely. So, he has taken extraordinary measures to reassure everyone. His plan includes measures like regular viral testing and provisions for personal protective equipment (PPE).


Just about any public policy has unintended effects that decision makers fail to anticipate. Unfortunately, when public policy is being devised, the people in the room helping to make decisions are frequently not the people who have to deal with the consequences of their policies. Intentions might be pure, but Governor Stitt’s announced measures will have consequences that were not fully anticipated, and so here are some hopefully helpful and constructive comments.


First, Governor Stitt announced the desire to devise a plan to test teachers for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on a monthly basis. This is a hopeless waste of money. For many, Covid-19 symptoms come and go within a month, and are often mild (the governor being an example). The only way constant testing could have a hope of preventing an outbreak, if that were a real risk in schools, would be if teachers were tested every day, or at least every other day. A positive test for a teacher after a clear test a month earlier could just be a result of detecting random strands of viral DNA from an already-defeated infection resulting from a robust immune response. Such an individual, never having shown symptoms, is unlikely to have ever been contagious, yet she would be sent home.


Wisely, the testing will occur on a voluntary basis. Teachers, especially those with comorbidities (an additional significant chronic illness that weakens the body and can, itself, be deadly), are the relatively vulnerable individuals in our schools, not the children. Teachers should be made aware of the symptoms they should watch for, and be tested at their individual request.


Second, a considerable amount of federal CARES Act money is to be spent on PPE, including enough reusable masks to double the number of students in Oklahoma’s public schools. More than two-thirds that number of gowns and pairs of gloves will be acquired, along with a number of face shields. While students are not invulnerable, Governor Stitt himself points out how very nearly invulnerable to this disease school-age children are. What’s more, a recent Wall Street Journal article (“For Many, Grasping Virus Risk Proves Tricky” 7/30/20) points out that Sweden’s experience with never having shut down shows teachers have a very low probability (less than 1 percent) of contracting the disease.


Also, consider the gowns and gloves. These are PPE to guard against surface transmission. The evidence is that while surface transmission is possible, it is unlikely. What’s more, gloves and gowns are likely of the throw-away variety (no doubt, the gloves are), so what, exactly, is the point? There will not be enough for everyone to don these PPE every day, or for everyone to don them for even two days. These especially seem like pointless spending and something like “hygiene theatre.”


It seems like it would be far more productive to shift CARES Act money away from testing and PPE and into doing the training and background checks necessary to have a small army of substitutes ready to fill in for teachers that might fall ill, or otherwise feel vulnerable and be waiting for test results after exhibiting symptoms.


Third, this is NOT the fault of Governor Stitt, but speaking of symptoms, some school districts, Oklahoma City’s being one of them, are talking about daily temperature checks of teachers (and presumably students). OKC’s teachers are to check their own temperatures. However, if any districts are considering mandatory testing at the door of teachers or high school students, it should be noted that fever can result from a multitude of causes. Thyroid disorders can cause low-grade fevers. So can auto-immune disorders (a comorbidity – such individuals should be informed to take special precautions). My wife has pointed out that ovulation and early pregnancies often cause fevers. Are female high school students going to have to explain that they are ovulating at the schoolhouse door to a strange screener and potentially in the presence of other students? 


Finally, when it comes to Governor Stitt’s press conference and press release, I have a gripe that is admittedly unrelated to Covid-19. That’s the uncritical reporting that 60 percent of Oklahoma’s school children are eligible for the federal free/reduced price lunch program. As has been pointed out elsewhere (p 6 of the paper), this statistic clearly results from fraud. The actual number of students in households with incomes low enough to be eligible is well below 50 percent of Oklahoma public school children.


Let’s not allow New-York-based media sensationalism to cause us to panic. Policy makers should make decisions based on facts and realistic assessments of actual risk, not placate the panic-stricken with inappropriate and expensive precautions that accomplish little or nothing.


Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute. He can be reached 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

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...

School Choice: I Have Erred

I should point out, before the reader gets into this piece, that these are my personal thoughts. Right around last Labor Day, I suddenly had a thought. I quickly made a calculation and realized that, as of the day after Labor Day, I’ve worked full-time in public policy for 25 years – a quarter of a century. While there really is nothing fundamentally more special about a 25 th anniversary than a 24 th or 26 th one, it is a widely-recognized demarcation point. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to take time and write down reflections on my career. My work has touched on several policy areas, but I’ve been thinking a lot about public education lately. That’s the area I practically swam in when I started my career, so here are my thoughts. On the day after Labor Day in 1994 I started work for a member of the Texas House of Representatives. He was the member who always carried a voucher bill, an issue for which I was thrilled to work. By that time, my wife had homeschooled our dau...

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...

Spending It Like They Stole It

When does government have the right to spend taxpayer money? Or perhaps, more pressingly, when should the government be forbidden from spending taxpayer money?   1889 Institute has previously written on the issue - developing five questions that should be asked before any government entity spends a single dime. These questions are:   1. Is a program or agency consistent with the mission of Oklahoma’s state government? This purpose was spelled out in our state constitution : “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Secure and perpetuate liberty (notice this is the first order of business). Secure just and rightful government (not any government, not the domino of the majority over the minority - just and rightful). Promote (not provide, or...