Oklahoma Education and You

All the way back to Mesopotamia, civilizations have dedicated public resources to some type of education. Why? Because societies have needs that can only be met by those who have been taught certain skills and knowledge.

In American democracy, public education serves two purposes: it is a promise to every person in the service of freedom, but it is also a public necessity. The state depends on an educated population for economic productivity, civic stability, and public safety.   We choose to fund education for these reasons and must demand accountability from all publicly funded systems.

That doesn’t mean every school must look the same or operate under a single model. It does mean the state has an obligation to ensure that any school receiving taxpayer dollars can deliver the outcomes society requires.

Those who tout “funding students, not systems are trying to correct a real injustice: when a school is not working for a child, families shouldn’t be forced to move houses, pay private tuition, or simply endure years of mismatch.

But the phrase “not systems” is misleading. It implies that the “system” is the district, and the alternative is something else—something freer, purer, more child-centered.

That’s not how schooling works.

Every school is a system—with incentives, governance, staffing, curriculum, discipline expectations, student supports, and financial management. Those system choices are what produce student achievement (or don’t). So public policy shouldn’t reward a school because it’s an alternative. It should reward a school for delivering results.

Right now, Oklahoma’s voucher system funds personal preferences with no evidence of return on investment.

If we want to expand educational opportunity while honoring the public purpose of education, we should adopt a simple rule:

Provide as much choice as possible for families—but fund only those alternatives that can demonstrate they meet the state’s needs.

That means the state sets a “public-interest gate” for any system that wants public dollars—traditional, charter, or private. The gate shouldn’t be about ideology or governance style. It should be about proof.

At a minimum, publicly funded systems should be able to show:

• Student learning growth over time (not just raw scores)
• Minimum achievement benchmarks in reading and math at key grade levels
• Transparent reporting for all students and key subgroups
• A safe, orderly learning environment that supports instruction
• Qualified staffing and intervention capacity, especially for early literacy
• Financial integrity (audits, transparent budgets, conflict-of-interest rules)
• Fair access and retention (no selective exclusion of high-need students)
• Consequences for chronic failure (restrictions, intervention, loss of eligibility)

This system (although it can use strengthening) is already in place for charters and traditional public schools. Traditional public schools have publicly elected school boards that are responsible for holding school leadership accountable. Charters have appointed boards and an authorizer performing the same function. The state department of education sets the standards and reporting requirements for all public schools. Private schools that are now receiving state money have no oversight from the representatives of the taxpayers who now help fund that system. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. Consider Indiana, a state with NAEP scores in the top 10 in the country.

Indiana’s Choice Scholarship Program (often called “the voucher”) is a state-funded scholarship that eligible K–12 students can use to help pay tuition and eligible fees at participating private schools. It’s run by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) under IC 20-51.

To be eligible, the student must be a legal resident of Indiana, between the ages of 5 and 21, and in a household whose income is less than 400% of the amount required to qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program. Currently, the threshold for reduced lunch for a family of 2 is $156,000. For a family of 4, it is $237,000. 

Families apply twice a year for either a full-year or a half-year award through the private school they choose.

The state awards either the amount of tuition and fees the school reports on the student’s application, or 90% of the state per-pupil funding given to the student’s current school of legal residence. The payment is made directly to the school on the student’s behalf after the parent signs an endorsement form

For a private school to participate, it must first be accredited by the state board or a recognized accreditor, administer Indiana’s statewide assessments for the grades it serves, and have a written admissions policy that does not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin.

Indiana ties ongoing participation (for new voucher students) to performance: Any school receiving a D or F for 2 consecutive years gets a one-year suspension from accepting new Choice scholarship students, which repeats until the school’s grade rises to at least a C.  Schools that remain a D or F for longer terms, including loss of access to funds.

Oklahoma could do this, and it should. If the state wants to expand choice to include more private schools, consumers (i.e., families and the public) need stronger protections. Some will argue we don’t need strong eligibility rules because “parents will choose.” However, education is not a consumer product where the seller can provide a refund for a bad experience. Children don’t get back the time they lose. Switching schools is disruptive. Marketing can outshine instruction, and the families with the fewest resources often have the hardest time navigating complex enrollment and transportation barriers.

I am a believer in school choice and saw it firsthand for over 6 years. School choice should not be about protecting one sector or attacking another. It should be about aligning public funding with the public purpose of education.

Families deserve more options, but taxpayers deserve proof of effectiveness. Thus, the state must demand results. Oklahoma can improve education through proven systems—district, charter, or private—but only with accountability measures that apply to all three systems.