Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Tulsa World editorial: Federal courts aligning against use of CARES Act funding for private school tuition

Tulsa World editorial: Federal courts aligning against use of CARES Act funding for private school tuition

  • Updated
{{featured_button_text}}
Gov. Kevin Stitt (copy)

Gov. Stitt announced his desire to fold the ODMHSAS into the Health Care Authority during his state of the state address in February, but little else had been said about it until it popped up in the House Rules Committee on Feb. 27. Tulsa World file

Gov. Kevin Stitt’s use of $10 million from the federal CARES Act for private school tuition is at odds with federal court interpretations, and he ought to change course.

Stitt made the decision in compliance with an interim final rule in June from U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos that described how states were to distributed federal COVID-19 relief funding for low-income students.

The DeVos rule supports reserving money from the one-time federal stimulus program to use for private school students regardless of their backgrounds.

Stitt’s plan would pay the private tuition for about 1,500 students, representing less than 3.8% of private school students and about 0.2% of all school-age students. Some recipient families could have an annual income of up to more than $100,000.

As we have stated before, this is an inefficient and poor use of taxpayer money. A couple of federal courts says it’s also not legal.

In the wake of the DeVos rule, several lawsuits were filed in other states challenging its effect on low-income students, who largely attend the nation’s public schools.

An August preliminary injunction from a federal district court in Seattle says the rule is “blind to the realities of this extraordinary pandemic and the very purpose of the CARES Act: to provide emergency relief where it is most needed …. Forcing the State to divert funds from public schools ignores the extraordinary circumstances facing the State and its most disadvantaged students.”

Last week, a federal judge in the District of Columbia struck down the DeVos rule as illegal, stating, “Congress expressed a clear and unambiguous preference for apportioning funding to private schools based on the number of children from low-income families.”

The CARES Act funding ought to be used to help the most people in the most need.

Stitt’s approach, which follows the DeVos philosophy, does the opposite; it underwrites tuition for a select few, ignoring larger needs.

Schools are still struggling. There are increased costs for sterilization-level cleaning, personal protective equipment for staff and students, internet connectivity and new curriculum and professional development for remote learning.

Expect schools to experience other pandemic effects such as mental health concerns from isolation or an increase in hunger from income losses.

The pandemic isn’t over. Stitt should alter his plan for the greater good and to comply with the intent of Congress.


FEATURED VIDEO

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

  • Updated

State Question 805 would stop judges from using previous nonviolent convictions as a justification for increasing prison sentences for people convicted of new nonviolent crimes. State Question 814 would redistribute money the state receives from an enormous 1998 multistate legal settlement with tobacco companies. 

  • Updated

"Debates are not just about telling the voters where you stand," the editorial says. "They're also about contrasting your ideas and accomplishments with those of your opponent. They're about showing how well you think on your feet. They're about demonstrating that your attitude and personality are what Oklahomans want representing them in Washington.

  • Updated

While some of the changes being discussed are reasonable, we are deeply concerned anytime lawmakers climb into the Open Meetings Act or the Open Records Act. It’s concern based on experience. The vast majority of legislative history on those two laws have been efforts to make them weaker and provide illegitimate hiding places for bureaucrats and special interests.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News