Without spending a lot of time re-hashing our stance on the Parental Choice voucher program – the state should NEVER, ever, ever, EVER, allow tax dollars to be used as tuition to a private school – no matter how hard you have to work to find the ‘right’ words to make it sound palatable to the plebes. More on this later this week.
Friday, December 1st, the Parental Choice voucher program was supposed to be open for enrollment. Next thing I know, there’s a communication in my inbox from Senate Pro Temp Greg Treat:
Interesting. KOSU reports that the vendor MERIT is to blame for the delay.
KOKH reports that MERIT is a vendor for the voucher picked by the Oklahoma Tax Commission from a list supplied by OHMES. It wasn’t a competitively bid job. The job of collecting applications wasn’t done inside the OTC, it was farmed to an out-of-state vendor. (Remember when that happened with Federal educational funds dispersed to Oklahoma during COVID? If you’re not sure, look here and here.) All that local Oklahoma student data – to an out-of-state vendor that uses a data warehouse called SNOWFLAKE that functions in the cloud. All one needs to do is look at this page on the Merit site where you see the term “digital wallet” and there’s no way a parent SHOULDN’T wonder where the data associated with their family’s application will go.
Julianne Romanello has done a very large amount of research on Merit and the tax credit/voucher and has found that this whole scheme – vouchering private schools under the government umbrella while collecting huge amounts of data on students – is just another way to connect students to the global education workforce pipeline. She’ll be the first guest on the FIRST ROPE Report after the holidays (Wednesday, January 10th – so mark your calendars NOW!) BEFORE our legislature goes into session, to talk about this. In the meantime, please find our video about all the data collection pathways and the State Longitudinal Data Base on YouTube. Parents, it’s time to OPT OUT of these systems of tracking your children. That’s all I’ll say for now.
In addition, it’s important to note that the tax credit/voucher program started out in the hole. The deal struck with MERIT was for nearly 4 million dollars, yet the legislature had only appropriated one million dollars for set up. Imagine that, the government over-budget on something. But then, imagine the government actually doing the job the legislature intended them to do.
So, Jenni, you gripe and moan but offer no solutions. Well, not exactly. For years our mantra has been, “don’t tax us for failing schools” or alternatively “don’t tax us for public education we don’t use”. So, instead of providing a blanket voucher to people to take government tax dollars to a private school where they’ll then be subject to government regulation, just let us keep our money – period. Don’t take it, make it government property and then return it to me with strings (or to a private organization or individual with strings), just let me keep my own money. If you want to argue that these dollars are not tax dollars, that they’re yours, you’re just getting them back, watch these two short videos culled from interviews we’ve had on the ROPE Report.
Also, please take the time to watch my video on the Oklahoma parental tax credit. You might be surprised what you learn.
School choice. Parental choice. It sounds good. It looks good. But, is it really all that it is cracked up to be?
A new Oklahoma law, hailed by Governor Stitt as a major victory for parents and students in Oklahoma, is just about to move into action with the Tax Commission’s adoption of an emergency rule this week.
While the text of the bill originally failed and faltered, it was “saved” by some resourceful legislators, who simply gutted another bill, pasted in the language, and ran it through under a different number.
The new law does two things. First, it provides families that are not in the public school systems – either brick and mortar or virtual charter schools – with reimbursement for certain educational expenses. Public money, potentially millions of dollars out of the state budget, is promised to private schoolers and traditional homeschoolers, who up until now have been completely private and parent-directed.
Second, the new law lays the groundwork to gather a wealth of information about private schoolers and traditional homeschoolers alike. Previously private information will now be public information shared between government agencies.
The law is not simply about school choice or parental choice. The “parental choice” law results in government control and involvement. When eligible families seek reimbursement, they will be required to give information to receive public funds. Specifically, the reimbursement law necessitates that the Oklahoma Tax Commission analyze requests for certain reimbursement of fees, curriculum and other educational expenses and cross-reference requests with the Department of Education for validity. If the Tax Commission reviews the information and finds that money was handed out improperly, then the tax man will come back to families and “capture” what was lost. Further, the Department of Education is required to create an online platform for the exchange of information, ratings and reviews of educational providers. (Look out Amazon)
These rich sources of unnecessary and intrusive information-gathering could obviously be used by the state to paint a picture of the entire private and homeschool communities and would likely lay the groundwork for future regulation. Opting out would no longer be an option.
While private school and homeschool freedom has not been obliterated yet, the chain is now placed around educational liberty – just as a choke chain is put around an animal‘s neck – as a sign of warning and threat to obey.
When the government offers something “free,” it is never free. It appears that the chain may only grow tighter and tighter, until parents have no educational choices at all. The real losers will be the children.
Warning – homeschoolers and private schoolers. Look out for the knock on the door and the man on your porch, who says, “Hello, I am with the government, and I am here to help.”
The Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit Act (OPCTCA) – HB1934 – directed the OTC to create/promulgate rules “to implement the provisions of the [Act]” (page 6 and page 8). To that end, the OTC has created rules and now has them open for public comment until 4:30pm on Thursday, October 12th of this year. The rules can be found here. The Oklahoma Statutes created from HB1934 can be found here.
Beginning Monday (10/2), I began to compare the rules to the bill. The rules cannot mirror the bill/statute word for word, because the OTC rules will include verbiage specific to the Act’s implementation. After speaking with Representative Sherrie Conley, I did learn, however, that the rules do have to mirror the legislative intent of the Act – the OTC couldn’t add things via the rules process that weren’t already specified by the Act or the intent of the Legislature in creating the Act. Consequently, I confined my review of the rules to that parameter.
Wednesday, October 4th on our ROPE Report LIVE podcast, I explained my findings – but also, the reasons ROPE cannot abide the Act in the first place. You can find a clip of this video on the front page of the website, but the FULL video can be found on YouTube and Rumble. I think it’s worth a watch for the topics covered.
WHAT CONCERNS DID I HAVE WITH THE RULES?
I really didn’t find any place that did not mirror the legislative intent of the Act. In other words, I couldn’t find any law making through the rules. I did, however, take issue with a couple things:
There are two versions of “Taxpayer” in the rules. One called “Taxpayer” that copies the definition from the Act, and another called “Oklahoma Taxpayer” that defines that OTC verbiage for a tax payer. These two should be combined because it is confusing to have two “Taxpayer” definitions.
Under the definition of “Eligible Student”, the OTC adds to the Act’s definition by including the words, “and is registered with the Oklahoma Tax Commission”. What? Why would a child under 18 be registered with the Tax Commission? Their taxpayer parents/guardians are registered, not the child. This designation needs to go in my opinion (IMO). I don’t even see how it’s helpful here and it makes me nervous because we ALREADY collect so much data on CHILDREN in Oklahoma.
Warrant. There are several problems here IMO.
The Act’s definition of “Warrant” says, “means an order for payment directing the State Treasurer to disburse funds to a designated payee. A warrant operates like a paper check.” (page 2 near the bottom of the page)
3D (top of page 5), says this, “Payment of the credit shall be made by the Tax Commission with an individual warrant made payable to the taxpayer and mailed to the private school where the eligible student is enrolled or expected to enroll. The taxpayer shall restrictively endorse the warrant to the private shcool for deposit into the account of the school, unless the tuition and fees for the eligible student have already been paid by the taxpayer.”
Why would the OTC send a paper check two places? Why does the school get it and the school ALSO get a warrant mailed to them? The taxpayer has to ‘restrictively’ (meaning they can’t endorse it for personal use – but then, how many people are going to have to be hired to check up on this?) endorse the check they receive to the school. Why doesn’t the parent just take the warrant to the school and not have the OTC issue two warrants?
This makes no sense IMO. In fact, the only reason I can see this ‘procedure’ being used is to make it seem as though the payment is coming from the family to the private school – which it is not. According to Forbes Oklahoma Income Tax Calculator, a married couple filing jointly have to make $180,000 before their Oklahoma income tax is $7500 (it’s $7,497) – the ‘reimbursement’ provided by the state for each child to go to private school. Therefore, the state pays the tuition to the private school for every child who applies for the ‘credit’ in a family that earns $180,000 or less.
Incidentally, a KOSU poll from last year found that voters oppose public money going to private schools – which is probably why House and Senate leadership (with cover provided by “school choice” groups Americans For Prosperity (AFP), OCPA and American Federation of Children) – lied to legislators and/or twisted arms to get them to agree that the Act was a ‘tax credit’.
Now, I could go more in depth about the OPCTCA here, but I did that in the video – and will continue to do it as time goes on with the vain hope that the people will see the errors in this idiodic scheme and tell the Legislature to do away with it because, in the long run, this WON’T help parents like the Legislature REDUCING OUR TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE. The idea that the government overtaxes me and then wants to return money to me – most of it that it stole from OTHER PEOPLE to give me (redistribution of wealth) in the first place – is anathema because the government’s ‘gift’ gives it so much more control over me than if the taxes weren’t taken from me (by force) in the first place.
Believe me, as a Christian, I HATE being the one to stand up and say, “You can’t give my taxes to a private school”, but I’m only doing it because I firmly believe that this whole “school chioce” scheme is to make sure that the public money going to private schools will make private schools public so that NO PARENT HAS A CHOICE as to how their child/children is/are educated.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?
According to the OTC website, “Written comments will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on October 12, 2023, at the Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, OK 73194, Attn: Lisa Haws, or by email to parentalchoice@tax.ok.gov.”
So, I’m sending an email to Lisa Haws that says,
Dear Ms. Haws,
Please consider the following comments regarding the Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit Act rules:
There are two versions of “Taxpayer” in the rules. One called “Taxpayer” that copies the definition from the Act, and another called “Oklahoma Taxpayer” that defines that OTC verbiage for a tax payer. These two should be combined because it is confusing to have two “Taxpayer” definitions.
Under the definition of “Eligible Student“, the OTC adds to the Act’s definition by including the words, “and is registered with the Oklahoma Tax Commission”. Why would a child under 18 be registered with the Tax Commission? Their taxpayer parents/guardians are registered, not the child. This designation needs to go in my opinion (IMO). The designation of “taxpayer” already covers who pays taxes.
The Act’s definition of “Warrant” says, “means an order for payment directing the State Treasurer to disburse funds to a designated payee. A warrant operates like a paper check.” (page 2 near the bottom of the page)
3D (top of page 5), says this, “Payment of the credit shall be made by the Tax Commission with an individual warrant made payable to the taxpayer and mailed to the private school where the eligible student is enrolled or expected to enroll. The taxpayer shall restrictively endorse the warrant to the private shcool for deposit into the account of the school, unless the tuition and fees for the eligible student have already been paid by the taxpayer.”
Why would the OTC send a paper check two places? Why does the school get it and the school ALSO get a warrant mailed to them? The taxpayer has to ‘restrictively’ (meaning they can’t endorse it for personal use – but then, how many people are going to have to be hired to check up on this?) endorse the check they receive to the school. Why doesn’t the parent just take the warrant to the school and not have the OTC issue two warrants?
This makes no sense IMO. In fact, the only reason I can see this ‘procedure’ being used is to make it seem as though the payment is coming from the family to the private school – which it is not. According to Forbes Oklahoma Income Tax Calculator, a married couple filing jointly have to make $180,000 before their Oklahoma income tax is $7500 (it’s $7,497) – the ‘reimbursement’ provided by the state for each child to go to private school. Therefore, the state pays the tuition to the private school for every child who applies for the ‘credit’ in a family that earns $180,000 or less.
Thank you so much for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Jenni White
Education Coordinator
Reclaim Oklahoma Parent Empowerment (ROPE)
jenni@rope2.org
CLOSING
Please feel free to make any changes to my letter – also, feel free to examine all the information for yourself to see if I missed something or if you don’t particularly agree with my criticisms of the Rules.
Not that Oklahoma – and Governor Stitt in particular – haven’t begun to truly love giving our tax dollars away and calling it an “investment“, but here’s yet another. A BIG one!
An “HISTORIC” 700 MILLION dollar “investment” in Oklahoma education. Here are some lines from the Senate press release praising this “historic” vote:
Here’s what’s in HB1935. To see the other “historic” “investments”, click on the link to the press release. There’s plenty there to read:
The Oklahoma State Senate today gave passage to its historic $700 million education package.
Senators voted overwhelmingly on both measures 40 – to – 7 on House Bill 1935 and 46 – to – 2 on House Bill 2775, approving the single largest appropriations increase to education in state history, sending it back to the House of Representatives.
Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, said the Senate did its job and delivered for teachers, children and parents.
HB 1935 will give parents additional options and control over their children’s education by providing a $100 million investment in school choice. This bill provides a $7,500 tax credit per eligible student each tax year if the eligible student attends a private school and the family has an income of less than $250,000. The bill also provides for a $1,000 tax credit per family, for certain qualified expenditures, each tax year if one or more eligible students is homeschooled. Valid receipts must be provided to OTC to receive the $1,000 tax credit.
NOT ONE OKLAHOMA REPUBLICAN SENATOR STOOD UP TO THIS. Not one.
Please, make sure you stop everything you’re doing and kiss your backside good-bye. Oklahoma is now a socialist state – and proud to be one. We just decided to take money from businesses and private citizens to educate the children of people making less than 250k at a private school.
Our family makes less than 250k. My husband and I both have Master’s degrees. We chose that I would stay home and educate our kids. We have never bought new cars, for years we couldn’t afford vacations, and we NEVER SPENT $7500 a year A PIECE on ANY of their educations – for FOUR kids.
Now, I get to be happy that, though we scrimped and sacrificed to provide our children with an education outside that provided by the government, others in our tax bracket can educate their kids at a private school ON MY DIME without that messy inconvenience of having to scrimp and sacrifice.
So let’s break down some issues with this “historic” investment :
1. The Oklahoma state government will take my property if I refuse to pay my property taxes and/or put me in jail if I don’t pay my income taxes and if I don’t pay my business taxes, they will divest me of the business I run which allows them to take my taxes.
2. The government cannot “invest” my tax dollars. They can’t take funds and apply ANY market ‘risk’ to the funds they steal from us by force. So the idea of an “historic” INVESTMENT is a complete crock.
2. The property taxes my husband and I pay for our schools are less than 2000. A tax credit – ideally – would be me not having to spend the money that comes out of my household that supports the public schools I DON’T USE. Can you imagine how fast the ‘public’ school would clean up when it became funded by a USE tax? If you can’t imagine, I’ll tell you: FAST, because THAT would be market competition – not this BS the legislature is selling calling it SCHOOL CHOICE.
3. Who pays the 750 million dollar price tag? Oklahoma citizens.
4. What happens if there isn’t a surplus, or we have a downturn in the economy? Where does the money come from then? If the ‘credit’ can’t be funded, where do all the kids go from private school who can’t afford it anymore? How much more will the legislature decide to ratchet up fees (they can’t call them taxes or a majority of the legislature has to agree which is why we haven’t had a tax increase in a long time – they learned they can tax us and call it a “fee” the legislature doesn’t have to agree to) when Oklahomans who have been hooked on the teat of FREE MONEY for PRIVATE SCHOOL have an absolute fit and demand ‘their’ money to finish educating their kids in private school? This ‘historic investment’ will become MEDICAIRE!!!
5. How many private schools are there to take all these new kids? Are there enough now? No, actually.
6. Does it make sense that enterprising Oklahoma legislators would go into the business of building private schools so they could make money on tuition?
7. What happens when a Satanist private school is built and accepts kids? The Supreme Court ruled recently that tax dollars can go to religious schools. What happens when my tax dollars fund a Satanist school? Wasn’t that one of the arguments against abortion? People were sick of their tax dollars funding abortions? Well I don’t want my tax dollars funding Satanic schools.
8. How many legislators/people complained it was socialism for Biden to pay for the student loans of flailing college students? ISN’T GIVING PARENTS 7500/KID TO GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOL THE SAME THING? What happens to those of us who schooled our kids on our own WITHOUT government help? Oh, that’s right. Tough luck – just like with business tax credits – the government will pick winners and losers and those of us with personal responsibility are the big losers.
9. The funding of public education is in Oklahoma’s constitution. The Oklahoma legislature is tasked with running these schools – hell, they make countless laws to make public schools kowtow to every year! IT’S THE LEGISLATURES JOB TO FIX OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT AREN’T EDUCATING KIDS.
The legislature’s job isn’t to SHIRK their job and put that job off on parents and call it PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT.
10. How empowering is it to parents to have their taxes go up year after year to pay for public schools that don’t work and countless government programs so that they don’t have the money to educate their own children?
11. And the bottom line: how is it the GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PRIVATELY EDUCATE KIDS? The more government grows, the more our liberty shrinks, the more our liberty shrinks, the more socialist we become.
For God sakes! I feel so sorry for the people who have emigrated to Oklahoma from the left coast thinking they were going to get ‘freedom’ here. Here’s the bottom line, as Reagan said many times, “We’re only one generation away” from losing America.
Sadly, the subsequent generations from that quote were educated in government schools that took away their history, dumbed down their math, botched their reading so the majority of kids can’t read at grade level and hooked them on porn. AND WE HAD THE PLEASURE OF PAYING FOR THAT. Government is now king – personal responsibility is done for. Bye-bye America. Bye-bye Oklahoma. RIP.
To hear the Voucher cabal talking, you find out a couple things quickly;
there is simply no downside to private school vouchers and
long-time homeschoolers or private schoolers don’t seem to be part of the discussion.
Why?
Probably because, like most things that vastly enlarge the imprint of government, the effects of any government program are far downstream from the initial creation – it’s the frog in the boiling pot syndrome if you will. No one sees a giant hook coming from backstage to pull all the homeschoolers and privately schooled kids into the pit of homogeneity and government regulation, yet it’s still there. It’s moving so slowly the audience doesn’t really notice it until – suddenly – the kids are gone.
Just recently I became aquainted with a woman who is a former high school counselor who does high school/college/career counseling for the homeschooling community, in addition to running an online learning academy and homeschooling her own kids.
Today, she sent me the following:
I work with homeschoolers from across our nation in an advisory role. All too often here lately, I am talking with families in other states that have recently passed vouchers or other forms of monies for ‘school choice.’ I hear the same story from most of them. The bills passed with minimal regulation, affording families choices in curricula and services, but after a year or two, those regulations increase and tighten, constricting those choices.
I spoke with a homeschooling family in another state yesterday, where they’ve had these vouchers in place for nearly a decade. When the family first began homeschooling, they were very loosely regulated and had the freedom to choose their curriculum. Now they spend a good portion of the school year ‘checking off boxes,’ ‘meeting with state officials,’ and trying to make sure they ‘jump through all of the hoops.’ The mom was very frustrated because it wasn’t helping her; it was wasting her time. The son was frustrated because he was no longer allowed to explore the classes that interested him (he wants to go into computer engineering, not underwater basket weaving), but instead had to complete a series of worksheets and other things his state-compliance-officer said he had not checked off in the “thousands of check boxes.” The mom said they literally spent four hours in a meeting last week with said officer going through a list of boxes of things to see if her son had covered the topics. Mom says the vast majority of these changes have come down the pipe in the past three years.
When I talk with homeschooling families in states where vouchers have more recently passed, I hear a similar story, but on a fast-tracked timeline. They were sold one idea, and then it was changed a year or two later. It’s the legislative bait-and-switch. While my examples are all about homeschooling families, as that is the population I work with, I’m sure that there are elements of bait-and-switch that are going to apply to non-homeschooling families as well. Don’t give up your freedoms in the name of getting a little bit of money. In fact — every family I speak with says that money flows freely at first, but then becomes harder and harder to get. The CA family from yesterday still has 85% of their allotted funding left for the year because they can’t access it since they haven’t jumped through all the appropriate hoops yet. Mom ended up paying for all of their curriculum out of pocket and is still required to follow the state voucher rules.
My experience is with homeschooling families, so I cannot speak to how school choice is affecting families of private or public school students. But from a psychological perspective, it’s much easier to control the mouse in the maze once you have it used to getting the free cheese.
Okay, one could call this “fallacy of small sample”. This is one woman I know, who talks to homeschooling families.
But what we can do is this: Governor Stitt is quoted in a recent Daily Oklahoman article about his committment to a voucher plan for Oklahoma, as saying,
“Other states like Iowa and Virginia and Florida and New Hampshire have already figured it out,” Stitt said in his remarks. “Providing more options for students leads to better outcomes. Oklahoma cannot afford to be left behind.”
So, let’s at least do this: let’s go out and see what the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) says about the homeschooling requirements for each state.
Iowa: Good grief. Iowa’s homeschooling regulations are too numerous to bother with here. The link is on the state name, good luck getting through all that in under 15 minutes. Also include a VACCINATION REQUIREMENT for kids.
Virginia: Same song second verse. Homeschooling regulations too numerous to mention including a VACCINATION REQUIREMENT for kids. Yup, very, very free so far.
Florida: Well, there is no vaccination requirement, but if you’re going to school your kids at home, you’ll need to show the state a portfolio of your work and take a normed achievement test yearly and provide those results to the state, or have your kid/s evaluated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Gosh, I can see nothing going wrong there. What if the kid ever wants to run for public office or be a CEO? “Well, son, I can see that you didn’t pass a psychiatric evaluation by the state to graduate your homeschool…”
New Hampshire: Great. New Hampshire is better – NOT! Here you have to register as a homeschooler, TEACH REQUIRED SUBJECTS, keep and retain a portfolio for two years and REPORT TO THE STATE if you graduate your child before the age of 18.
OCPA just reminded us today of new statistics put together by EdChoice.org – a multimillion dollar, 501c4 organization. OKLAHOMA PARENTS CHOOSE TO HOMESCHOOL MORE THAN ANY OTHER GROUP OF OPTIONS OUTSIDE PUBLIC.
In fact, I’ve met more people recently – including my neighbors – who’ve moved here from another state to HOMESCHOOL thanks to the right of parents via the Oklahoma Constitution to educate their children by “other means“.
Last year, during our fight to prevent Republicans from making homeschool and private schools public via SB1647, a lady reached out to us on our Facebook page and said,
Why there are legislators in Oklahoma who want to make Oklahoma LESS FREE for parents to educate their children, I have no idea. It literally makes no sense. But, our Governor – in his own words – has said he wants Oklahoma to be MORE LIKE the four states listed here.
THAT IS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR HOMESCHOOLERS – OR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HOMESCHOOL – HERE IN OKLAHOMA.
To study the Voucher (state aid – aka tax dollars/public funds – for private schools) issue in Oklahoma, I have reviewed three Oklahoma voucher bills originating in the Oklahoma Senate – one from 2022, the other two from the 2023 legislative session – and compared them against each other.
According to an article in 538 – 14 states already have universal voucher programs or are attempting them via legislation in 2023.
Oklahoma houses state groups operating under their national parents – American Federation for Children and AFP – as well as Oklahoma-originated “choice” groups, OCPA and Scissortail, both of which are interconnected and involved with the groups Choice Matters and the Parent Voice Oklahoma network.
Yearly, millions of dollars are spent by ‘school choice’ advocacy groups, whose donations fund election campaigns for and against ‘choice’ candidates and lobbying efforts, instead of creating and seeding the Education Savings Accounts they spend so much money on lobbyists to force STATE TAX PAYERS to fund.
OKLAHOMA PARENTS HAVE EDUCATIONAL CHOICE
Let’s be clear. Oklahoma parents have EDUCATIONAL CHOICE. In fact, one of the first school “choice” organizations, EdChoice, outlines the variety of ‘choices’ available to parents in Oklahoma on their website, saying:
“Oklahoma offers K–12 students and their families several types of school choice, including two private school choice programs, charter schools, magnet schools, home schooling and inter-district public school choice via an open enrollment policy.”
So, not only does Oklahoma have a WIDE VARIETY of choices available to parents to educate their children, we also have TWO SEPARATE WAYS to help Oklahoma public school students attend PRIVATE SCHOOLS without further legislation.
If Oklahoma already has full Educational Choice, what does the term “School Choice” mean other than specifically, “universal vouchers”.
If Oklahoma already has full Educational Choice, then why must Oklahoma institute Universal vouchers? Vouchers, like other ‘private/public’ partnerships take private schools and introduce money from the state coffers. All state money should come with strings that provide public accountability for the money forcibly taken from the tax payer and benevolently gifted to another for use. In that case public money MUST impose restrictions on private schools/institutions that weren’t there before the public dollars were introduced. Thus, private becomes – in essence – public, no matter what any legislation says.
Why would Oklahomans want to be deprived of the choice of true private schools? How does that action provide educational choice? And for all the tin-foil-hat-wearing readers – doesn’t making all schools public provide excellent inroads toward one world government? Just a few thoughts to mull over while reading the mechanics of the bills.
OKLAHOMA BILLS
All three bills have the same opening lines in Section 1 (the first section of New Law) – my favorite of which begins, “It is the intent of the legislature…” Apparently the authors haven’t read the axiom about the road to hell and intent.
By my count, all three bills make the State Treasurer’s office responsible for no less than 20 EXTRA jobs – and that’s on top of the biggest job of all – accountability for a whole new Revolving Fund storing taxpayer dollars.
SB822’s (’23, Julie Daniels; co-author SB1647 ’22) voucher program is called the “Oklahoma Education Freedom Act”. Freedom, however, isn’t provided by 7 new sections added to the overcrowded books of Oklahoma law.
SB943’s (’23, Shane Jett; co-author SB1647 ’22) voucher program is called, “The Oklahoma Parent Empowerment Act for Kids Account – or the OK PEAK Account”. The state cannot ‘empower’ parents by taking money from their budgets by force and then offering that money to others to do something they couldn’t already do on their own budget. That’s welfare, not empowerment.
SB1647’s (’22 Greg Treat) voucher program was to be called, “The Oklahoma Empowerment Act”. (To find the text of the bill, go to the Oklahoma Legislature. From the top menu, click on “Legislation”, then click on “Advanced Bill Search”. Type in SB1647 in left box, pull down 2022 regular session and select, then push “retrieve”. Click on the “floor version” hyperlink as that was the bill voted on in the Senate last year.)
BASIC INFO:
Description
SB1647
SB822
SB943
Identifies the Treasury as “Agent/Agency” over created student accounts – drastically expanding that office
X
X
X
Number of new sections added to Oklahoma State law
6
7
6
Stipulates qualifying student must be within 300% of income to qualify for free or reduced lunch
X
Calculation made for each eligible student approved to participate in the Account = total State Aid factors including pupil category weights for the applicable school year X grade weight generated by the student for the applicable school year
X
X
X
Constitutional homeschoolers carved out of participation with specific language “other means of education”
X
–
–
Here I will summarize ALL parts of the bills. In some cases, I will copy the bill word-for-word and CAPITALIZE the lettering. These are the points that need careful consideration and the points on which I will opine in my next piece.
FYI: ESP = Education Service Provider, OSDE = Oklahoma State Department of Education, Agency = The Oklahoma State Treasurer’s Office. Act is used to cover EVERY Act since they are nearly 100% similar and Account is used to denote every Account though the bills give them specific names.
SPECIFIC INFO:
Description
SB1647
SB822
SB943
*Section 2 (New Law); definitions are all the same excepting Act/Account names
X
X
X
Section 2C1; Applications made to Agency – no deadline for submission
X
X
X
Section 2C2; Agency establish procedures to approve applications – parents agree to: Use Account for only qualified expenses, NOT ENROLL STUDENT IN FULL-TIME PUBLIC SCHOOL, Comply w/Agency rules, NOT ACCEPT Lindsey Nicole Henry SCHOLARSHIP FOR STUDNETS W DISABILITIES
X
X
X
Section 2C3; Antidiscrimination provision
–
X
X
Section 2D; Student not required to be ENROLLED FULL OR PART TIME IN A PRIVATE BRICK/MORTAR OR ONLINE SCHOOL
X
X
X
Section 2E; Accounts may be closed if: Student RE-ENROLLS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL FULL TIME
X
–
–
Student ENROLLED FULL TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
–
X
X
Intentional misuse, Graduation, or age 21
X
X
X
Section 2F; If student moves to PUBLIC SCHOOL deposits suspended/remitted to GR fund at year end
X
X
X
Section 2G1; Agency requests state aid eligibility from OSDE (via calculation listed above) Student accounts funded monthlyAgency notifies OSDE regarding account changes
X
X
X
Section 2H; ESP can’t share/refund/rebate money to parent or student only to Account
X
X
X
Section 2I; PARENTS PROBHIBITED FROM DEPOSITING INTO ACCOUNT
X
X
X
Section 2J; Account monies NOT TAXABLE
X
X
X
Section 2K; Funds accrue monthly/yearly
X
X
X
Section 3 (New Law)A; Agency maintains public list of ESPs
X
X
X
Section 3B; Agency provides Account holders information including the ROLE OF ANY PRIVATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FIRM OR OTHER PRIVATE ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH THE AGENCY MAY CONTRACT TO ADMIN THE ACT
X
X
X
Section 3C; Agency provides Account students w/disabilities notice that PARTICIPATION IN THE ACCOUNT SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A PARENTAL REVOCATION OF CONSENT PURSUANT TO 20 U.S.C., SECTIONS 1414(a)(1)(D) AND 1414(C) OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) and rights parents of Account holders have under IDEA and any applicable state laws/regulations.
X
X
X
Section 3D; AGENCY MAY CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE FINANCIAL MGT FIRM OR OTHER PRIVATE ORG TO ADMIN ACCOUNT.
X
X
X
Section 3E; Agency may withhold funding from deposits to admin Account at 5% first 2 yrs and 3% yearly after
X
X
X
Section 3F; Agency SHALL establish system to pay ESPs from Account via electronic or online funds transfer
X
X
X
Section 3F1; Payment system requirements
X
X
X
Section 3F2; AGENCY MAY CONTRACT W PRIVATE ENTITIES TO DEVELOP PAYMENT SYSTEM
X
X
X
Section 3G; Agency implement rating system for ESPs
X
X
X
Section 3H; Partial payments in advance of services may be paid to ESP and then deducted from deposits
X
X
X
Section 3I; AGENCY HAS AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT/CONTRACT FOR ACCOUNT AUDITING – SHALL CONDUCT RANDOM AUDITS OF 10% OF ACCOUNTS ANNUALLY
X
X
X
Section 3J; Agency as authority to remove eligibility if intentional/substantial misuse of Account funds
X
X
X
Section 3J1; Agency creates procedures to determine misuse. If misuse by parent, student shall be eligible in future
X
X
X
Section 3J2; Agency has authority to refer to AG for fraud investigation
X
X
X
Section 3J3; Parents may appeal revocation of account eligibility
X
X
X
Section 3K; Agency may cease payments to ESP for: Intentional misrepresentation/failed to refund overpaymentsRoutine failure to provide services
X
X
X
Section 3L; Agency shall create procedures for ESP sanctions, ESP must notify parents if prohibited, ESP may appeal prohibition
X
X
X
Section 3M; AGENCY MAY ACCEPT GIFTS AND GRANTS FROM ANY SOURCE TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION OF ACCOUNT TO – ADVERTISE PROGRAM – AND FUND ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTS
X
X
X
Section 3N; Agency promulgate rules for Act Creation of anonymous online fraud reporting service, Creation of anonymous phone hotline for fraud reporting, Requiring surety bond for ESPs funded over 100KRefunding payments from ESPs back to Accounts
X
X
X
Section 4 (New Law)A; AGENCY MAY APPROVE ESPs ON OWN INITIATIVE, AT REQUEST OF PARENTS, AT REQUEST OF A PROSPECTIVE ESP.
X
X
x
Section 4B; Prospective ESP shall Submit notice to Agency of desire to participate and receive funds, AGREE NOT TO REFUND, REBATE, OR SHARE ACCOUNT FUNDS WITH PARENTS/STUDENTS
X
X
X
Section 4C; Public school of Account student must provide records to PRIVATE SCHOOL ESP
X
X
X
Section 4D; NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL LIMIT THE INDEPENCE OR AUTONOMY OF AN ESP OR MAKE THE ACTIONS OF AN ESP THE ACTIONS OF STATE GOVERNMENT. ESPs SHALL BE GIVEN MAXIMUM FREEDOM TO PROVIDE FOR THE EDUCATIONA NEEDS OF ACCOUNT STUDENTS WITHOUT GOVERNMENAL CONTROL. AN ESP ACCEPTING PAYMENTS FROM ACCOUNT AS DIRECTED BY PARENTS PURSUANT TO THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN AGENT OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.AN ESP SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ALTER ITS CREED, PRACTICES, ADMISSIONS POLICY OR CURRICULUM TO ACCEPT PAYMENTS AS DIRECTY BY PARENTS FROM AN ACCOUNT.
X
X
X
Section 4E; NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO EXPAND THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, ITS OFFICERS, OR ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL TO IMPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL REGULATION OF ESPs BEYOND THOSE NECESSARY TO ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCOUNT.
X
X
X
Section 4F; If judicial finding of noncompliance w D/E Agency docked 5% in state funding for following fiscal year
–
X
X
Section 4G; Account student/parent has cause of action against Agency in case of noncompliance w D/E
_
X
X
Section 5 (New Law); Creates continuing, yearly, revolving fund for Account. Account SHALL CONSIST OF ALL MONIES RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER FROM APPROPRIATIONS, GIFTS, GRANTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS. Agency budgets, appropriates and expends Account monies. Expenditures made by Agency issued warrants.
X
X
X
Section 6 (New Law)A; State bears burden in legal proceedings challenging application of Act to ESP
X
X
X
Section 6B; NO LIABILITY SHALL ARISE ON PART OF AGENCY, THE STATE, A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT/CHARTER/MAGNATE SCHOOL BASED ON AWARD OF OR USE OF AN ACCOUNT
X
X
X
Section 6C; If the Act is challenged in court, parents are allowed to defend the Act against the challenge
X
X
X
Section 6D; The Act provisions are severable so that if one is struck by the court, the rest of the Act survives
X
X
X
Section 7 (New Law); An additional $274,743,402 will be appropriated to the OSDE to support public schools
X
Section 7 (Section 8, SB822); Act effective July 1, 2023
X
X
X
Section 8 (Section 9, SB822); Emergency clause
X
X
X
* Selected definitions:
4. Education Service Provider (ESP) = person, business, public school district, public charter school, magnet school, institution with The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, or organization that receives payments from a parent directing an Account to provide educational goods and/or services to Account students.
5. Eligible Student = resident of the state eligible to enroll in a public school in the state
6. Account student = eligible student approved to participate in Account
7. Qualified Expenses include: tuition/fees to PRIVATE school, NON-PUBLIC ONLINE school, services contracted for and provided by a PUBLIC DISTRICT or PUBLIC SCHOOL, instructional materials, computer/technology needs, tuition/fees for extracurricular activities, NATIONALLY STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS, tuition/fees for summer programs, tuition/fees to a technology center school, OCCUPATIONAL/BEHAVIORAL/PHYSICAL/SPEECH-LANGUAGE/AUDIOLOGY therapies, tuition/fees concurrent enrollment, transportation fees, ANY OTHER QUALIFIED EXPENSE APPROVED BY THE AGENCY
SB943 (Jett) includes the following definitions not found in the other bills. Though the definitions are included in SB943, there is not a single place in the bill that mentions either definition:
9. “Reporting Agency” =
a. parent’s state representative or senator
b. the board of education for the resident district of the parent, as determined by Section 1-113 of Title 70 of the OK Statutes
c. the State Board of Education, or
d. the county sheriff for the county in which the parent resides
10. “Trigger district” = a school district in this state where (a whole range of liberal/woke concepts/activities) have been tolerated:
a. example; obscene books, furries, sex ed, gender identity/sexual orientation instruction
While every political campaign has numerous points for failure from fundraising to voter contact, a post mortem of Jake Merrick’s re-election campaign shows that a combination of dark money and redistricting probably did more than anything to sink the re-election campaign of a fine man and public servant.
When I wrote Part 1 of the series, I reported that OCPA, through their Dark Money group Catalyst Oklahoma, had spent $50,620 FOR Merrick’s challenger, Kristen Thompson after spending over $100,000 FOR Merrick’s special election through their dark money group People for Opportunity last year.
I also reported that Senator Merrick – while voting yes in the Senate Education Committee – voted no on the Senate floor on the extremely contentious bill – SB1647 – which would provide publicly funded vouchers to private schools.
Lucia Frohling and Jill Shero both work for ECKO – Every Kid Counts – an organization run by Education Secretary Ryan Walters which supports school choice, including vouchers.
Ryan Martinez wrote a $1,000 check from his campaign account (Friends of Ryan Martinez) to Thompson’s campaign in December of 2021. Martinez is a Representative from the Edmond area who was the House Chair – along with Senator Lonnie Paxton, the Senate Chair – of the state’s legislative redistricting efforts. In March, Friends of Ryan Martinez donated another $1,700 to Thompson.
Mike Cantrell – an originator of Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB) and an 11-year member of the Board of EPIC Charter Schools, who left the Board as depositions began for the criminal investigation which culminated in the arrest of EPIC’s founders, David Cheney and Ben Harris for alleged embezzlement of state tax dollars, donated $1,000.
Josh Cockroft – Governor Stitt’s Political Director.
Donelle Harder – who has worked for Governor Stitt – by way of Washington, D.C. – in several capacities and currently manages his 2022 re-election campaign.
Chris Kannady, an attorney and State Representative for Cleveland County wrote a check from his campaign account (Friends of Chris Kannady) for $1500 to Thompson’s campaign. Kannady told the New York Times that he had led an effort to purge then-elected Republicans from the State House in 2018 because they were a “cancer” to the Party. In July, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission made public that it will sue the Conservative Alliance PAC, from which dark money donated via the Prosperity Alliance was used to oust as many as 11 Conservative House members that year. His campaign pays a consultant called the James Martin Company LLC, owned by Jenna Worthen, wife of Trebor Worthen, former partner with Fount Holland of AH Strategies, an organization who, with client Joy Hofmeister, was charged in a 2016 dark money scheme to oust former State Superintendent Janet Barresi. Today, Trebor runs Sooner State Leadership, a 501C4 dark money group running adds against Governor Kevin Stitt. Kannady also apparently works with CAMP (Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals), run by Worthen’s former partner, Fount Holland. Just a quick glance Kannady’s campaign account is eye-opening. For the first filing period in 2022, Kannady had $341,154.42 and his contributions are a “who’s who” of Oklahoma and national PACs including $10,000 of donations from the OKC Fraternal Order of Police $5,000 and Marathon PAC $5,000.
Trent Smith, the CEO of Accentra, is also co-owner of Sooner Medical Staffing with House Majority Floor Leader Jon Echols and was appointed to the Oklahoma State School Board by Governor Kevin Stitt.
Republican House member Preston Stinson donated $1,000 to Thompson via his campaign fund – Stinson for House. Stinson was prominently featured in the state audit against EPIC Charter Schools management organization, Community Strategies. Ben Harris appointed Stinson to the Community Strategies Board – the governing body for Epic One-on-One Charter School and Epic Blended Charter School in 2016 – and later Community Strategies-CA, alleged to be the ‘shell’ company used by Epic Youth Services through which to receive management fees from Epic California creating profits for Harris and Chaney (#49 of Affidavit of Probable Cause). Preston Stinson received 55% of all campaign donations from EPIC founders and family for his 2020 campaign for the House of Representatives.
Former one-term State Superintendent Janet Barresi not only donated the $2,900 maximum to Kristen Thompson, she introduced her at an Oklahoma Conservative PAC meeting where Kristen shared her message with the audience AFTER OCPAC had committed to endorsing Jake Merrick again for his second campaign for Senate. Fully committed to Common Core during her tenure as State Superintendent, ROPE was nevertheless able to help repeal the bill mandating Common Core in 2014.
The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber PAC provided $1,500.
The State Chamber PAC kicked in $1,000.
Friends of Anthony Moore – who now has had an Oklahoma Bar Association complaint filed against him by OCPA President Jonathan Small for the VPO’s filed by his wife prior to the primary – donated $1,000 from his campaign fund (Friends of Anthony Moore 2022).
OKC Firefighters Association PAC Fund – $5,000.
Turnaround Team Pac donated $1,500 to Thompson. Governor Stitt has frequently called his first four years the “Oklahoma Turnaround”. In fact, his latest TV ads for his re-election campaign prominently feature this concept. The Oklahoma Ethics Commission filing for Thompson list a PO box in Jenks, Oklahoma as the PAC’s address. It is listed as an ‘unregistered’ PAC and there is no filing for the PAC with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, but Turnaround Team PAC is registered with the FEC in Newport, Kentucky. The treasurer for the PAC is listed as Kevin Broghamer from Newport, Kentucky, who is also the registered treasurer for Governor Stitt’s Oklahoma campaign account. As of 7/14/22, the PAC has $110,000. Donors include;
Edward Hilliary and Dustin Hilliary ($5k each); The Hilliarys own Hilliary Communications, a broadband and telephone service covering southwestern OK and northwest TX. They also publish the Comanche County Chronicle in Elgin and the Southwest Ledger out of Lawton. Governor Stitt has appointed Dustin Hilliary to the Board of the Oklahoma Regents for Higher Education.
For the past year, the House and Senate worked on re-drawing House and Senate districts across the state. This is done every 10 years in conjunction with the collection and distribution of the decade’s CENSUS data. Here is a picture of Merrick’s original district with the new district transposed over the top with red.
Note the approximate location of Merrick’s house (the small red dot nearly on the new southern district line) – especially compared with before. Prior to re-districting, Merrick’s neighbors could vote for Merrick. Now, only the neighbors to the north had that opportunity. Truly very odd.
It almost seems as though the powers that be wanted to re-district Merrick right out of his district. Losing a large chunk of voters with whom Merrick lived and already had voter recognition was tough.
With 9,485 votes in the election, Merrick lost to Thompson by 833. Merrick won Canadian county by 210 votes (total voters 3,036), but was beaten soundly in Oklahoma County by 1,043 (3,746 to 2,603 – total voters 6,449). Merrick had an uphill battle when most of the voters in this election were in Thompson’s backyard.
PACS MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE
These PACS spent money FOR Thompson (except Job Creators Action Fund).
These PACS spent money AGAINST Merrick. There was no PAC spending FOR Merrick.
{Interestingly, OCPAC’s Bob Linn, quotes Jeff Yas in the OCPAC email of July 11th 2022 where he touts the “money following the kid” (vouchers).}
A large chunk of School Freedom funds have been donated to the Protect Freedom PAC and the Club For Growth.
In Oklahoma, according to the Ethics Commission, the Chairperson for the School Freedom Fund is David McIntosh whose email url reads “clubforgrowth.org”.
Also according to Ethics Commission reports, the School Freedom Fund PAC spent $75,206 FOR Thompson and $119,546.23 AGAINST Merrick.
Then, there’s Common Sense Conservatives, LLC. Here is the address for the PAC.
Yup. A Reesor’s parking lot.
There is no email listed for the Director whose name is simply listed as “Walt Lowe”.
There are a couple Walter Lowe’s in Tulsa, but not anyone who stood out as being someone associated with a PAC – like an attorney. I have tried the number listed on the PAC and it does not work (1-918-236-6078) it’s a constant busy signal as though it’s not a working number. I have checked the Oklahoma Secretary of State website for the LLC. Guess what? Big shocker there – nothing listed. I even tried the FEC and there’s no listing there either. It’s an LLC – according to the Ethics Commission website, so I wouldn’t be able to locate it on the IRS website for non-profit filings. I can’t locate it under “Committees”, I can only find it under “Independent Expenditures”. I’m so mad about it, I filed an Ethics Complaint on the PAC 7/20/22.
Common Sense Conservative (FAKE) PAC spent $66,310 on Digital Ads through an organization in Tennessee called Counterpoint Messaging LLC AGAINST Merrick.
In fact, this PAC spent $207,592.17 against a whole slew of candidates – J.J. Stitt and Brady Butler running against Darcy Jech in SD26, Chris Toney running against Brenda Stanley in SD42, Deb Campbell and Jennifer Sengstock in HD50 against Marcus McEntire, Ron Lynch in HD60 running against Rhonda Baker and Karmin Grider running in an open seat for HD31. ALL candidates but Grider lost. Grider is in a run-off.
In total, PACS spent $158,615.17 FOR Thompson and $185,856.23 AGAINST Merrick, meaning that Thompson benefitted from a WHOPPING $344,471.40.
What in the world? Sadly, how is Kristen Thompson not a bought and paid for candidate by special interest dark money PACS whether she means to be or not? The fact that Oklahoma elections can be BOUGHT like this should concern every voter in the state, not just those in SD22.
WHY DARK MONEY PACS WORK
Most voters don’t work to be educated about issues or candidates. They don’t study candidates or even subscribe to organizations from which they could get an idea of what issues candidates stand for. Consequently, when they see an ad on Facebook calling Jake Merrick a “fake Republican who supported government overreach”, they’re likely not going to look up his voting record, emotions will kick in and Jake will get kicked to the curb. Same with the crazy mailers Fount Holland and his buddies make up.
WHY CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE BARRED FROM CONTRIBUTING TO EACH OTHER
Note the number of campaign accounts listed in Thompson’s contribution reports:
Friends of Anthony Moore
Friends of Chris Kannady
Friends of Ryan Martinez
Stinson for House 2022
Four separate campaigns donated to Thompson. Let’s say I donated to Friends of Anthony Moore. I expected that money to go to support his election/re-election campaign, I didn’t expect he would donate my funds to another candidate I might not like instead.
Truly, this is a form of money laundering. Money comes into the campaign for campaign expenses, but it’s then donated to another campaign who then donates it to another. Where is accountability in this round robin? If an elected official wants to donate to a campaign. It should be out of their own pocket, not out of funds citizens provide in good faith that it will be used for their campaigns.
HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM
Though this month (7/22) the Ethics Commission recently shut down arguably the most influential PAC in Oklahoma – the Senate Republican PAC – due to ethics violations, over the years, the legislature has taken away more and more of the Commission’s ability to preside over dark money and other campaign issues.
If we are to take back our elections and elect candidates we want representing our community instead of people from out of state willing to throw around truckloads of cash to get candidates elected to forward their agendas in our legislature, or the school choice voucher cabal here in Oklahoma who use in-state and out-of-state donors to push their political will, we must give the Ethics Commission the tools they need to fight for campaign accountability.
Nothing beats an educated voter, but until we have a million of those, we need an Ethics Commission armed and ready to beat back unethical campaign behavior to keep good candidates like Jake Merrick from being steamrolled out of office.
Explain to your legislator that Oklahoma absolutely must give the Ethics Commission the ability to prosecute any electioneering that occurs against Ethics rules and ask them to sponsor legislation next year toward that end.
It’s our only hope.
——————–
FYI: CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THOMPSON: Catalyst Oklahoma $50,620, School Freedom Fund $75,206, American Energy Action Fund $9,862, Job Creators Action Network $22,927.17
CONTRIBUTIONS AGAINST MERRICK: School Freedom Fund $119,546.23, Common Sense Conservatives $66,310
In case you’ve not seen our Facebook posts with further explanations as to why ROPE has chosen to support Dr. John Cox for Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction, I’m going to paste them into the blog where you can share them with all your smart friends who are NOT on social media!
From June 7th:
A story about Dr. John Cox and why history is important: (update at bottom)
Back in 2012 (or so), the Carter County Republicans asked me (and ROPE) to do a presentation for them about why we needed to fight Common Core. They had the meeting at a hotel near I-35. After speaking, Julia Seay and I and a few others went to Two Frogs down the road to have dinner. Dr. Cox had been to another of our presentations previously and came to dinner with the group that night.
Julia and I both wondered why on earth a Democrat was so interested in fighting Common Core, so, we grilled him – beginning with abortion. He shocked us. He said he was 100% pro life. We asked him about gun ownership and he was 100% pro-second amendment.
As we got further into our discussions, Julia and I both started laughing. Julia actually told him something like, “You’re more Republican than many Republicans we know!” He explained that he’d been brought up as a Democrat and where he lived, there weren’t any Republicans to vote for anyway. If he wasn’t a Democrat he couldn’t vote except in a general election, where he traditionally voted for Republicans.
During the Common Core fight, John consistently showed up to do what he could to push back against an initiative he knew would tie his hands as an administrator and dumb down learning for his students – WHEN FEW OTHER SUPERINTENDENTS – REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS – ANYWHERE IN OKLAHOMA DID.
Today we know that ROPE, Dr. Cox and all those who fought so hard against Common Core and federal intervention into state public education systems WERE 100% RIGHT about everything we said would happen with implementation of CC.
Since coming out with our endorsement of Dr. Cox yesterday, we have been lambasted and castigated by a prominent Christian once-supporter and had subscribers drop our email newsletter. This is all fine, as ROPE will fight to the death to allow people to express their opinions, but it is UNBELIEVABLY hurtful and frustrating.
To think – after all these years – that ROPE (or me) would support someone who supports policies I/we HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED is nonsensical. Why on earth would someone look at a label before taking the word of others who may know more about the person than they themselves – or even better – INTERVIEWING THE PERSON THEMSELVES?
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. TRUMP was once a Democrat. One of the – hands down – most courageous, competent public servants we have in office – Cindy Byrd – was a Democrat and WE SUPPORT CINDY BYRD TOO!
I know that the devil has been seeding distrust since the beginning of time. I know he is the Father of Confusion and Lies. I know Conservatives have been through the ringer lately and trust is hard.
HOWEVER, allowing ourselves to tread water in a sea of emotion, where we all get spooled up in the back-stabbing, intrigue of ‘politics’ to make us feel as though we’re ‘doing’ something – we need to STOP AND THINK – and use discernment and reason to chart our course.
I’m not saying ANY man is perfect – only Jesus gets that label among humanity. All I’m saying is, the more we use emotion over reason and the more we desire to fight with one another, the faster we lose any chance of gaining the ground we’ve lost to the Communists – who are our REAL ENEMY and threat to individual liberty.
**I’m also going to add here – ROPE is not funded by anyone. We tried to be a PAC but it didn’t work. We have always supported this group on gas donations and out of our own pocketbooks. We don’t owe allegiance to anyone or any group. About what other advocacy group can you say that?
And from my personal Facebook page June 9th:
Yesterday, a person tagged me in a post that said they didn’t understand our stand for Dr. Cox because he has ‘never stood for parents’.
Here is the truth: Dr. Cox STOOD WITH PARENTS AGAINST COMMON CORE when only one or two other Superintendents did. But even that isn’t the issue here.
While Dr. Cox was labeled a Democrat, he STOOD WITH PARENTS against a FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF EDUCATION.
Here is the list of REPUBLICANS who stood AGAINST PARENTS and FOR FEDERAL EDUCATION: Former State Superintendent Janet Barresi, former governor Mary Fallin, former Senator Clark Jolley (who is running for state Treasurer and who wrote the bill to insert Common Core AND OTHER OBAMA EDUCATION INITIATIVES – into our state) and the state Chamber. Oklahoma Council For Public Affairs (OCPA) NEVER GOT INTO THE FIGHT FOR PARENTS AT ALL ON THIS ISSUE.
Who was right about Common Core? #ROPEWASRIGHT all it takes is a bit of internet search to find all the studies indicating just that.
As I’ve said before HISTORY IS IMPORTANT and if you choose to overlook it, you do so at your own peril.
In the end, who knows what Dr. Cox will do if elected – we can only go on our past experience with the man and the things he’s committed to us and the public. Obviously, Dr. Cox is human – as are we all.
We continue to remain friendly with Secretary Walters, but I did tell him, when I called to inform him of our endorsement, that one of the gravest concerns we have about his candidacy, other than his desire to see vouchers implemented statewide, is all the people with whom he associates.
In fact, his associates – all on ECKO’s Board of Directors – include former Policy Director for Mary Fallin, (Jake Yunker) – who, with former Secretary of Education Janet Baressi fought the repeal of Common Core – former Representative Lee Denney who fought against the repeal of Common Core and Jennifer Monies, who has worked extensively with the State Chamber who fought Common Core. This election cycle, Secretary Walters has had fundraisers thrown for him by both Jeb Bush – a Common Core and school choice proponent – and Betsy DeVos whose family runs the American Federation for Children 501(c)(4) and PAC; the (c)(4) of which reported 8 million dollars in revenues in 2019. Those names don’t inspire the idea of ‘parental rights’ to us, but the top-down, administrative, big government solutions of which we need to rid Oklahoma, not double-down.
“School choice is going to be very popular – it’s gonna poll very well – it has an enormous…everybody’s ‘spidey’ sense should be tingling because of how much money’s behind the school choice lobby. Like who writes your checks? Why on earth is so much money being dumped into this school choice lobby?”
James Lindsay via Unwokeable.
Ever wonder why James Lindsay was the greatest thing since sliced bread when he was going after CRT, but after he began talking about the false choice of school choice, his influence has disappeared in Oklahoma? Hint: our HUGE school choice mafia – I mean lobby – don’t want YOU to hear what he has to say, lest it hurt their plans to make all schools public schools.
If you like James Lindsay and like what he has to say about DEI, CRT and all the other nonsense feeding into our public schools and society, you had BETTER listen to this podcast. Here, Mark Ousley (Unwokeable) and James Lindsay discuss why the School Choice movement is a FALSE MOVEMENT and why. Don’t have time to listen? Put on your airpods and listen while you work. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
