Search

ROPE Report

Tag

voucher

Governor Stitt Says He Wants Oklahoma To Be More Like The Voucher States Of Iowa, Virginia, Florida and New Hampshire Where Homeschooling Is Significantly More Restricted Than Oklahoma

To hear the Voucher cabal talking, you find out a couple things quickly;

  1. there is simply no downside to private school vouchers and
  2. 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.”

Oklahoma Gov. Stitt proposes $130M school voucher program. Will rural opposition sink it again?

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.

An Analysis of Three Oklahoma Voucher Bills:  SB822 (Daniels, 23), SB943(Jett, 23), SB1647 (Treat, 22)

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, then, is not leading, we’re simply following the explosion of ‘universal’ voucher legislation being forwarded through the states from a variety of national, multimillion dollar private, non-profit organizations, including Milton Friedman’s EdChoice, a Charles Koch/Walton Foundation joint venture called yes. every. kid., Jeb Bush’s ExcelInEd, The Walton Family Foundation, Betsy DeVos’ American Federation for Children, and a conglomeration of many school choice advocate groups led by DeVos under the umbrella The Alliance For School Choice and Americans For Prosperity.  

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:

DescriptionSB1647SB822SB943
Identifies the Treasury as “Agent/Agency” over created student accounts – drastically expanding that officeXXX
Number of new sections added to Oklahoma State law676
Stipulates qualifying student must be within 300% of income to qualify for free or reduced lunchX  
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 yearXXX
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:

DescriptionSB1647SB822SB943
*Section 2 (New Law); definitions are all the same excepting Act/Account names XXX
Section 2C1; Applications made to Agency – no deadline for submissionXXX
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 DISABILITIESXXX
Section 2C3; Antidiscrimination provision–XX
Section 2D; Student not required to be ENROLLED FULL OR PART TIME IN A PRIVATE BRICK/MORTAR OR ONLINE SCHOOLXXX
Section 2E; Accounts may be closed if: Student RE-ENROLLS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL FULL TIMEX––
Student ENROLLED FULL TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOL–XX
Intentional misuse, Graduation, or age 21XXX
Section 2F; If student moves to PUBLIC SCHOOL deposits suspended/remitted to GR fund at year endXXX  
Section 2G1; Agency requests state aid eligibility from OSDE (via calculation listed above) Student accounts funded monthlyAgency notifies OSDE regarding account changesXXX
Section 2H; ESP can’t share/refund/rebate money to parent or student only to AccountXXX
Section 2I; PARENTS PROBHIBITED FROM DEPOSITING INTO ACCOUNTXXX
Section 2J; Account monies NOT TAXABLEXXX
Section 2K; Funds accrue monthly/yearlyXXX
Section 3 (New Law)A; Agency maintains public list of ESPsXXX
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 ACTXXX
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.XXX
Section 3D; AGENCY MAY CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE FINANCIAL MGT FIRM OR OTHER PRIVATE ORG TO ADMIN ACCOUNT.XXX
Section 3E; Agency may withhold funding from deposits to admin Account at 5% first 2 yrs and 3% yearly afterXXX
Section 3F; Agency SHALL establish system to pay ESPs from Account via electronic or online funds transferXXX
Section 3F1; Payment system requirementsXXX
Section 3F2; AGENCY MAY CONTRACT W PRIVATE ENTITIES TO DEVELOP PAYMENT SYSTEMXXX
Section 3G; Agency implement rating system for ESPsXXX
Section 3H; Partial payments in advance of services may be paid to ESP and then deducted from depositsXXX
Section 3I; AGENCY HAS AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT/CONTRACT FOR ACCOUNT AUDITING – SHALL CONDUCT RANDOM AUDITS OF 10% OF ACCOUNTS ANNUALLYXXX
Section 3J; Agency as authority to remove eligibility if intentional/substantial misuse of Account fundsXXX
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 investigationXXX
Section 3J3; Parents may appeal revocation of account eligibilityXXX
Section 3K; Agency may cease payments to ESP for: Intentional misrepresentation/failed to refund overpaymentsRoutine failure to provide servicesXXX
Section 3L; Agency shall create procedures for ESP sanctions, ESP must notify parents if prohibited, ESP may appeal prohibitionXXX
Section 3M; AGENCY MAY ACCEPT GIFTS AND GRANTS FROM ANY SOURCE TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION OF ACCOUNT TO – ADVERTISE PROGRAM – AND FUND ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTSXXX
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 AccountsXXX
Section 4 (New Law)A; AGENCY MAY APPROVE ESPs ON OWN INITIATIVE, AT REQUEST OF PARENTS, AT REQUEST OF A PROSPECTIVE ESP.XXx
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/STUDENTSXXX
Section 4C; Public school of Account student must provide records to PRIVATE SCHOOL ESPXXX
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.XXX
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.XXX
Section 4F; If judicial finding of noncompliance w D/E Agency docked 5% in state funding for following fiscal year–XX
Section 4G; Account student/parent has cause of action against Agency in case of noncompliance w D/E_XX
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.XXX
Section 6 (New Law)A; State bears burden in legal proceedings challenging application of Act to ESPXXX
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 ACCOUNTXXX
Section 6C; If the Act is challenged in court, parents are allowed to defend the Act against the challengeXXX
Section 6D; The Act provisions are severable so that if one is struck by the court, the rest of the Act survivesXXX
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, 2023XXX
Section 8 (Section 9, SB822); Emergency clauseXXX

* 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

Is SB1647 (Education Voucher) Now Only For Homeschooling Families? An Analysis.

Often, it takes hours to really read a bill because it’s important to look up associated laws and terms that may not be obvious to the reader. Then it requires reading passages over and over and comparing them to other passages to make sure of context. Truly, to do it right, each bill requires a substantial time investment to read properly. And to think – legislators must read hundreds of bills during just one half  of session alone…

I am not going to paste the entire bill into this post. Please find it here and download the version that was posted March 3rd, labeled, “Senate Floor Version March 2, 2022”.

PLEASE NOTE: ROPE will never be for an education voucher system – only a tax credit system. This analysis simply explains the major issues we’ve found in the bill.

*Page 1: Section 1B: “by directing State Aid for which each child is eligible to the education provider of their choice”. 

Page 16: Section 5 lines 3 and 4 – fund is to contain “appropriations, gifts, grants, donations, and bequests”.  

This is a mixing of public and private funds and certainly not simply “State Aid” making these sentences inconsistent.

*Page 2: Section 2 A3: “OEA means the account in which funds are deposited by the Agency…” 

Page 7: Section 2G1: “The Agency shall notify the State Department of Education and request calculation of the amount of State Aid for which the student is eligible.”

Page8: Section 2 G2: “The State Department of Education on a monthly basis shall transfer to the Agency for deposit into the OEA Revolving Fund”

Page 15: Section 5 creates the Oklahoma Empowerment Account Revolving Fund to which “All monies accruing to the credit of the fund are hereby appropriated and may be budgeted and expended by the office of the Agency (State Treasurer) for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the OEA”. Monies “received by the office of the State Treasurer from appropriations, gifts, grants, donations, and bequests”.

Another apparent inconsistency: The Agency deposits funds, the OSDE transfers funds, “appropriations (State Aid?), gifts, grants, donations, and bequests” are placed in this account. 

*Page 2: Section 2 A4: “Education Service Provider means a person, business, public school district, public charter school, magnet school, institution within the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education or organization that receives payments from a parent directing an OEA…”

Why would the OEA pay a PUBLIC school for any service? Wasn’t the idea for kids to go OUTSIDE the public school? So this bill uses state and private funds to pay public schools? Why? For what function?

*Page 2: Section 2A5: “Eligible student means a resident of this state who is eligible to enroll in a public school in this state…” 

“Eligible student shall not mean a student who is educated pursuant to the other means of education provided for in subsection A of Section 10-105 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes”.

An “eligible student” then is: 1. Any student who can go to public school 2. Whose family income is 300% of free/reduced lunch price and 3. Not educated by “other means”.

*Page 3: Section 2A6: “Empowerment student” is an OEA eligible student. 

 Page 5: Section 2Cb – (parent must sign an agreement upon application for the OEA to):

– b. not enroll eligible student as a full-time student in a public school district, public charter school or magnet school AFTER acceptance of an OEA

– d. not accept a scholarship from the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship for Students with Disabilities Program while participating in OEA

Page 5: Section 2D – “Nothing in this act shall be construed to require that an empowerment student be enrolled full time or part time in a private school or a nonpublic online school”.

Let’s review: to be a student ‘eligible’ for the OEA, that student 1. can’t be enrolled in public school 2. can’t be a student in the LNH scholarship 3. isn’t required to be enrolled at a private school 

Granted, 2D is so poorly written it’s hard to make heads or tails of, but if it’s saying that an OEA Empowerment student isn’t required to be in private or non-public online school or public school, or an LNH scholarship student – the ONLY category left would have to be HOMESCHOOL student. I would doubt that’s what’s meant, but that appears to be what was said.

This bill as written, then, creates two types of ‘homeschool students’: those who get state funds and those who “Constitutionally educate” their children and don’t take state funds – but it doesn’t appear to apply to private schools.

This is a HUGE issue. EPIC (public school at home) has already muddied the water in the mind of the public as to what Constitutional “by other means” homeschoolers are (parents pay taxes for public schools and assume all economic responsibility for the raising and education of their children). How in the world would anyone be able to tell which homeschoolers are NOT taking public funds and which ones WERE?  And how would a homeschooler that takes public funds be any different than an EPIC user now? While this may seem like a nothing to most people, once a form of homeschooling is identified by state law and regulated, it will be very easy to regulate the other – it’s precedent. To date, homeschooling in Oklahoma has been so successful and unprecedented because of the “by other means” language in the state Constitution, which has NEVER been defined and therefore very hard to be regulated. 

*Page 3: Section 2A8b: Qualified expenses – “tuition and/or fees for non-public online learning programs”

2A8d: “services contracted for and provided by a public school district…”

Why would the state provide state funds to send an Empowerment Student to an already-funded state school when the idea was to remove the student from a public school? 

*Page 4: Section 2A8k: “tuition, fees, instructional materials, and assessment fees for a curriculum or program offered by a technology center school 

Page 5: Section 2A8m: “tuition and fees for concurrent enrollment at an institution with the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education.

This seems like an open door for fraud. Students in Oklahoma under 18 may attend technology center schools without paying for the service. Universities charge for books and fees, but not tuition for concurrent coursework.

 *Page 7: Section 2F: “Any unused funds remaining in the OEA at the end of the applicable calendar year shall be remitted to the General Revenue Fund.”

Page 8: Section 2H: “An education service provider shall not share, refund or rebate any amount of an OEA with the parent or empowerment student. A refund or rebate for goods or services purchased with an OEA shall be credited to the OEA.”

Why shouldn’t ANY unused or rebated funds return to the OEA? The General Revenue Fund is a ‘slush fund’ that can be used for any reason. Why take money from the state coffers and then not return it to the account from which it was to be distributed in the first place? 

*Page 9: Section 3 C: “participation in the OEA program 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”…

It appears that parents who take the voucher may not have their child evaluated for a disability while on the program. I assume because the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship already covers disabled children.

*Page 10: Section 3 F, 1, 2: All of this information from lines 12-23 appear to be creating the Digital Wallet.

ROPE has had major concerns with the Digital Wallet program. We believe it pulls kids into the State Longitudinal Data Base where reams of data are collected and sent to many, many state agencies and it’s a perfect place for implementation of ESG (social credit) scores. 

Superintendent Ryan Walters is not only the state’s Secretary of Education, but he runs an organization called Every Kid Counts OK (ECKO). During the pandemic, Governor Stitt applied for federal CARES ACT funds. Eight million dollars was funneled through ECKO using a digital wallet private vendor called “Class Wallet“, so the program has already been beta tested. Now that they’ve used the program and a private vendor to take payments, it appears the next step is to take the program state wide as the backbone of an educational voucher system.

Since federal money was funneled through a private organization, there is no direct oversight set in place for the movement of those funds at the state level. This is not at all a transparent way to handle tax dollars at any level – but then again, creating an entirely new bureaucracy in the State Treasurer’s office isn’t the way to make government smaller, more local and more responsive either.

Early in the session this year, ROPE noticed that Representative Martinez in the House and Senator Quinn in the Senate, both had “Creating the Digital Wallet Program Act” bills. We went to both authors, explained our issues and asked them to please not run the bills. Both actually agreed, yet we were stunned to see Senator Quinn’s on the Senate Ed Committee roster 2/22/22.

That afternoon, I made a phone call to our Secretary of Education, explained our concerns to him and asked that Oklahoma not go down the digital wallet road. Fortunately, Senator Quinn’s bill was pulled from committee and Representative Martinez’ bill was not heard. 

In politics, however, those with an agenda ALWAYS have a fail-safe. It appears SB1647 contains the language that is that fail-safe for this program.

In closing, though I read – and marked up every line of the bill – I didn’t cover every line of the bill here – I just stuck to the issues of greatest concern to us.

Since we have begun lobbying against this particular bill, our group – and me personally – have been the brunt of numerous character assasinations – I’m a liar, I don’t care about others, I’m an elitist, I want kids trapped in failing schools. 

Certainly, this is disheartening and frustrating, but no matter what dissenters say, our stance is defined upon the following three concepts – the same three upon which our organization has stood from the beginning; 

1. Personal Responsibility 

2. Smaller government 

3. Individual Liberty

SB1647 grows government, infringes on the individual liberty of those who have taken the personal responsibility to care for their own children to the point of paying twice (taxes and tuition) and takes responsibility from churches and individuals to help those who need help. The concept is wrong and the bill is poorly written. That’s really about all there is to it.

Jenni White

Education Director, ROPE

Oklahoma Conservative PAC Arguments For “Money Follows The Kid” (Voucher) ‘School Choice’ Option Are Wrong-Headed and NOT CONSERVATIVE

Being a conservative is often a lonely position. Asking people to take responsibility for THEMSELVES to prevent government intervention is not an easy sell in a world where all the creature comforts of human existence are but a moment away. After being attacked personally by OCPAC for an opinion Reclaim Oklahoma Parent Empowerment corporately holds, a rebuttal is in order.

In full disclosure, several members of ROPE met with OCPAC President Bob Linn February 8th to discuss our concerns with SB1647, during which time Mr. Linn admitted he had not read the bill. 

Let’s be very clear: NO, ROPE does not support the movement of tax dollars (government money – vouchers) to private or homeschools. 

Here are the ways ROPE SUPPORTS PARENT EDUCATIONAL CHOICE:

  1. Individual and family tax credits for home or private school. Oklahoma doesn’t have this option currently, but there are several bills in the legislature this year to do so – SB1471 – and several modifications to increase the EOES (below)
  2. Tax credit scholarships created by private individuals and corporations that make a donation to a scholarship set up for families in need to use for a tax credit (Oklahoma already has the Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship program that fits this bill.) The EOES supports both students in failing schools AND low income families.
  3. Money following the child throughout the public (government) school system from failing schools (open transfers)
  4. Creation of charter and other ‘extra’-public schools of which Oklahoma now has 30 (OSDE charter school report)

Here is the email sent by OCPAC on Valentine’s day 2022, to which I respond using quotes from the email. 

“The passage of SB1647 is a must and will give authority to the parent to direct their child’s education.”

This is incorrect. Oklahoma parents have more authority to direct their child’s education than many other states. Parents in Oklahoma can: 

  1. constitutionally home school their children in any way they please
  2. send their children to an Oklahoma private school – many of which provide scholarships for needy families on their own (Casady, Heritage Hall, Oklahoma Christian School, Holland Hall, etc.)
  3. send their children to a public online charter school like EPIC, which provides tax dollars to parents who would like to school their children at home using EPIC’s curriculum
  4. send their children to a brick and mortar charter school (link above)
  5. begin saving their money in a state-sponsored 529 program when their children are born to use for either college or a private K12 school
  6. use the EOES mentioned above to attend a private school
  7. transfer to another public school – if allowed by the school to which the transfer would be made
  8. use the Lindsey Nicole Henry scholarship (voucher) for students with disabilities to attend a private school 

“Education dollars are fiduciary funds”

The term ‘fiduciary’ comes from the word ‘trust’. A ‘fiduciary’ responsibility imposes a restriction that money given (or taken) is used in good faith and in the best interest of the owner of the money. That’s all that means. 

The government has no money it doesn’t forcibly take from citizens (people who don’t pay their taxes go to jail or lose their property), so all ‘government’ dollars are tax dollars, taken from the people. Yes, government has a fiduciary responsibility for those funds, but how many times have those been overlooked and money spent wastefully and fraudulently? Who is NOT familiar with wasteful government spending? Tom Coburn was.

Bob uses Social Security as an example. This is a sad example of ‘fiduciary’ funds. Though I’ve paid into the SS system, it has been raided over and over by government overreach to the point that few of us my age will have funds to use for retirement. What happened to the government’s ‘fiduciary’ responsibility there? Clue: GOVERNMENT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT ‘FIDUCIARY’ RESPONSIBILITY or public schools wouldn’t be the problem they are now. If government cared, they would have appreciated their fiduciary responsibility and made schools responsible for not educating students all along.

TJ Schmidt, an attorney with Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), does not agree with Bob’s assessment and says that, because all money comes from taxpayers, any government money taken from citizens but then given back – as in to home or privately school children (voucher) – comes with the need to make those funds ACCOUNTABLE to taxpayers. 

Here is a PERFECT example from Arizona, a state where government money is given to homeschooling families. CLUTCHING PEARLS…how could it be that a government audit found $700,000 abused by ‘homeschooling’ parents? 

When citizens are ‘incentivized’ to use government money to do something they don’t have the personal responsibility to do on their own, there will be fraud – it’s simply human nature. 

In fact, my contention is that parents who want to homeschool do so to ESCAPE government entrapment and don’t want ANY government involvement. Parents who want government money to school at home use a system like EPIC where government money pays for curricula to be used at home. Data from Arizona indicates I’m correct.

Arizona has the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (much like SB1647) allowing state money to go to numerous types of schooling including private or homeschooling. Please note several things:

  • parents funding private school OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS were the happiest of all
  • though polling shows 29% of Arizonans would use private school and 14% homeschool, the actual numbers are MUCH LESS – 6% and 2% of Arizonans actually use the GOVERNMENT programs respectively and Arizona was one of the earliest adopters of ‘school choice’ programs

In fact, EdChoice tells us that 23% of Arizona’s students are eligible for vouchers and tax credit programs and 100% of students are eligible for a tax credit scholarship, but ONLY 7% OF ALL ARIZONANS USE ALL PROGRAMS TOGETHER and that’s the best record in the nation! 

No data had been collected on the Lindsey Nicole Henry voucher for children with disabilities for 10 years, until last year, providing no previous accountability to taxpayers for the program.

Data for 2021 indicate that after a 31 million dollar investment over the 10 years, only 1,135 students took advantage of the program in 2021 and of those that reported their status (112), only 32% (36) were economically disadvantaged.

“We have denied an equal playing field” to children sentenced to a failing neighborhood school

How have we done that? I just cited 8 ways parents can direct the education of their children and showed that, when offered, most parents don’t take advantage of voucher programs or tax credit scholarships. 

But beyond that, since when did a ‘conservative’ talking point become ‘equaling the playing field’? 

I searched the term ‘equaling the playing field’ and found this slide show about how COMMON CORE equaled the playing field for all kids. Now that’s great! But, as we said it would for YEARS, Common Core – making every child have the same curricula across the US – FAILED SPECTACULARLY, never amounting to any kind of positive change on student achievement of any kind.

CONSERVATIVES DO NOT USE GOVERNMENT TO ‘EQUAL PLAYING FIELDS’, we want the government to stay in its own lane and allow PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND THE MARKET TO CREATE CHOICE.

“Those who oppose educational choice where money follows the child display an arrogant and callous disposition to the less fortunate”

Gosh, I guess, people like Ben Carson, whose single mother worked three jobs to allow Ben and his brother a great education and Mark Robinson (Lt. Gov. of North Carolina) whose family was dirt poor but made sure he and his siblings were well educated have it all wrong. Government should have come in and incentivized their transformation – because government ALWAYS produces programs that work. 

I find it sad that a Christian Conservative, would – essentially – call those who want LESS government and more personal responsibility ‘arrogant and callous’. 

In Matthew 26:11, Jesus tells us that the poor will always be with us. 

Leviticus 23:22 quotes the Lord as saying, “When you harvest the crops of your land, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop. Leave it for the poor and the foreigners living among you.” 

In other words, INDIVIDUALS, left part of the harvest for the poor to harvest themselves. The Romans taxed the Jews horribly, but their religion told them it was THEIR responsibility to help the poor. 

As PragerU said in a recent Instagram post, “Jesus advises us to be of “generous spirit” – to show kindness, to assist the widow and the orphan. But he clearly means this to be our responsibility.”

Conservatives are those who promote LESS GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, PRIVATE COMPETITION and INDIVIDUAL GIVING.

“More than that, they also fail to understand that no parent should see their educational dollars forced into the government’s failed model of education.”

Nope, we get it – we just want it done THE RIGHT WAY – via tax credit and tax credit scholarship. Both would remove money from public education, but do so BEFORE the money is taken by the government in the first place. 

Here’s something Bob doesn’t apparently understand – the legislature appropriates education dollars. Why don’t we ALL advocate that, instead of giving more and more tax dollars to FAILING government education, the legislature use the grade card the State developed to get ESSA funds, to pull funding from failing schools?

Bob acts as though schools just fail by themselves. It’s a cascade of failure from appropriations and over-regulation by the state and federal governments, through parents who have let school boards run amok by trusting they were doing the right thing and never checking up. 

Bob complains that government schools are unGodly and parents shouldn’t have to leave their children in that situation.

OF COURSE THEY ARE! THEY ARE PROPPED UP BY SECULAR GOVERNMENT MONEY! Do you honestly think that sending government money into home and private schools WON’T PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS? It absolutely will. Right now, the only thing staving off an atheistic society are Christian home and private schools. Why do you want to compromise the two things that are working under complete parent control? That makes absolutely no sense! 

In fact, schools that participate in the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship – including private Christian schools – are required to comply with the antidiscrimination provisions of 42 U.S.C., Section 2000d, which the Biden Department of Justice has used to force schools into transgender bathroom policies and anti-discrimination policies protecting transgender athletes. I’ll just leave that there.

Why not instead work with churches to create programs like microschools, learning pods or to provide daily tutoring, or even create a school specifically for those below the poverty line? The Biden Justice Department can’t force policy there. Again, why does GOVERNMENT have all the answers? Don’t conservatives think the private sector has those?

In closing, Bob calling me “a bit callous, heartless and cold” for wanting the private sector to do their job instead of allowing government to do that is a bit social justice warrior for me – especially in the face of Conservative principles. Government doesn’t provide choices, the private market does and the more government ‘does’ the less churches and the private market do.

Note this: in 2021, homeschooling and private schools grew and Oklahoma public schooling LOST STUDENTS thanks to parents deciding to homeschool and leave government schools ON THEIR OWN POWER.

Just recently I posted a meme to our social media about how single-parent families could homeschool and was inundated with OTHER ideas as well:

  • coming together to co-house and afford housing to homeschool
  • working from home and schooling when able in their schedule
  • church-created homeschool coops for single parents
  • teaming up with other families to create a coop so that each day the parents rotate so one is in charge of the children every day
  • teaming up to hire a tutor to teach all the children each day
  • homeschool families bringing in children of single parents to school with their own kids (I did this with the child of a single friend. She just became a part of the family and she graduated with my own!)

These are AWESOME ideas that parents came up with all on their own without the ‘benevolent’ hand of the government ‘helping’ them.

CONSERVATIVES, STOP TRYING TO USE GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE LET GOVERNMENT CREATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only ways to help students out right now (other than making the legislature responsible for their funding of failing schools) is to provide individual family tax credits for home and private schooling and tax credit scholarships for the same. This would help parents and ‘punish’ failing schools without government strings while allowing the free market to work.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑