School choice critic ignores findings by state Supreme Court

NE sign of zealotry is refusal to face reality. Such appears to be the case with one professor’s opposition to school choice. Despite a unanimous rebuke from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, he still thinks his legal theories have merit.

Clarence Oliver, an education professor at Oral Roberts University and former superintendent of Broken Arrow schools, is among the more vocal opponents of school choice programs that allow tax dollars to follow a child. Such programs, including proposed Education Savings Accounts, allow parents to use a set amount of taxpayer funds to choose any school for their child, whether public or private.

Oklahoma already has one such program in effect, the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act, which is designed for children with special needs. This program has allowed many children to attend private schools, including schools serving children with autism. It’s been wildly successful. Thus, it’s drawn strong opposition from status-quo forces.

Oliver was among those who filed a lawsuit challenging the scholarship program, contending it violated a state constitutional provision banning expenditure of taxpayer funds “directly or indirectly” for the benefit “of any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.”

In February, the state Supreme Court rejected that argument in overwhelming fashion. Justices unanimously agreed the program does not directly or indirectly fund religion because the money goes to parents (not churches), participation is voluntary and private schools’ participation is based on religion-neutral criteria.

In keeping with prior rulings, the court found no problem with religiously affiliated providers receiving state funding so long as the state gets something of value in return. Indeed, the court noted public schools in Oklahoma have been contracting with private schools to educate children with special needs since 1993. The scholarship program “simply allowed and

the same right that school districts already enjoyed,” the court wrote. (Emphasis in original.)

In a concurring opinion, Justice Steven W. Taylor said the school choice program was essentially identical to numerous other government programs in which religious entities may receive taxpayer dollars.

“The facts here are no different than the state making payments to a private institution, although religious, to care for needy, state-dependent children when those payments fail to cover the full cost of their care,” Taylor wrote.

“The facts here are no different than the state sending inmates of a state prison to a church-affiliated hospital for medical care. The facts here are no different than a state Medicaid recipient being treated at a churchaffiliated clinic.”

In short, so long as future school choice programs are structured similarly to the Lindsey Nicole Henry program, it is clearly constitutional for state government to allow parents to use taxpayer funds to send their children to private schools, including church schools.

Yet in discussing his opposition to repeal of the aforementioned provision of the Oklahoma Constitution (Article II, Section 5), Oliver recently told

Ben Felder, “I still think you could challenge a voucher program under our constitution.” It seems Oliver doesn’t understand the difference between the ability to a lawsuit and one in court.

We often bemoan the economic waste caused by frivolous litigation. One thing that fuels bogus lawsuits is plaintiffs who willfully ignore the outcome of their prior cases.