Weekly Opinion Editorial
by Steve Fair
This legislative session, State
Representative Jason Nelson, (R-OKC) authored a proposal entitled, The Oklahoma
Education Saving Account Act. Under
Nelson’s bill, state government would deposit money for a child, based on a
sliding scale depending on family income, into an education saving
account. The money could be used for an
accredited private or online school. The
money could also be used to buy textbooks, get tutoring or pay for achievement
tests. Florida has a similar program to what Nelson
proposes. On their website, the Florida
Department of Education says, “School
choice can benefit all schools by introducing the pressures and incentives of
the marketplace into the educational arena.” Nelson’s bill narrowly got out
of the House Education committee (vote of 9-8), and never got to the floor of
the full House for a vote.
The Oklahoma Education Association, not surprisingly, opposes Nelson’s
idea. Linda Hampton, president of the
OEA said, “The problem is, if you take money away from the public school, even if
you take one child out, you still have to pay the teacher, the electric bills,
buses,” she said. “You’ve still got all the expenses, but now you have less
money.” Nelson contends that per-pupil funding would not decline under his
proposal, but would slightly increase. Hampton says the idea is
a slippery slope and that people shouldn’t be ‘opting out’ of government
services that are important for society.
Oklahoma isn’t the only state
considering school choice. Currently
twenty seven states are considering mirroring Florida’s program. Lily Garcia is president of the National
Education Association and says the expansion of school choice ‘terrifies’ her
because it promotes the idea that school is a commodity. Garcia’s position is understandable because
if school choice is expanded many parents would likely shop around for the best
fit for their children and that might not be the public school system. School
choice could endanger the current competition-free atmosphere that public
education enjoys.
The 2013 Oklahoma Republican Party
platform under the heading ‘Education’ states the following: We believe all parents should be allowed to
use their education tax dollars for the family’s choice of schooling. The 2012 National Republican Party platform
states: “We applaud efforts to promote
school choice initiatives that give parents more control over their children’s
education.” Here are three reasons
that Republicans support school choice:
First, education money is taxpayer
money. The money that public education
receives from the legislature is your money.
It belongs to you. You should
have the right to determine where your money is spent on your child’s
education, not the government. Parents
should be involved in the decision as to where their education dollar is
spent. The renowned economist Milton
Friedman, who was arguing for school choice in the 1950s, said, “Parents generally have both greater
interest in their children’s schooling and more intimate knowledge of their
capabilities and needs than anyone else.” Friedman contended that more choices would
improve public education in America.
Under the current system in Oklahoma,
parents who can afford it have a choice, but lower income Oklahomans must
educate their kids where the government tells them to.
Second, good schools don’t need
compulsion, bad ones don’t deserve it.
Why should a child be compelled to go to a bad school simply because his
parents can’t afford to send him to a private school? Oklahoma
schools achievement test scores has been less than stellar the last few years
and the answer from the education community is always the same: Give us more
money. If ESAs were implemented and
parents directly controlled where their educational dollars went, schools would
be forced to compete in the educational marketplace. Quality educators and schools shouldn’t fear
competition- they should welcome it.
Good competition expands the market and results in better products and
services. Competition makes you better.
Third, the purpose of public education
should be to educate the public. If we are really concerned about Oklahoma kids getting an
education, then why are we so focused on the venue or setting they get it? Currently 87% of children are educated in
Oklahoma public schools, 10% in private schools, and 3% are home schooled, but
100% of Oklahoma taxpayer education dollars go to public education. Funding should mirror how children are being
educated. It simply makes sense.
Nelson’s proposal didn’t make it to the
floor primarily because the legislature is facing the single largest budget
deficit in state history. The price of
oil has decimated state government and the timing for school choice just wasn’t
right, but it is a concept whose time has come.
Every Oklahoma
parent should be given the right to determine the education their child
receives.
No comments:
Post a Comment