Last week we discussed how Baptist and Bootlegger coalitions have taken the wind out of the sails of the charter school movement. The term “Baptists and Bootleggers” comes from regulatory economics and in the context of charter schools describes how elements of the charter school movement (in this case large CMOs) have effectively partnered with the anti-charter usual suspects to limit competition-900 page applications, charter laws hewing closely to sponsored “model” bills but mysteriously producing few charter schools, etc.
Private choice laws are not immune to this danger. The most obvious path involves requiring accredited private schools.
For example, Oklahoma lawmakers recently passed by far the most robust personal use tax credit policy in the nation. All previous programs of this type pale by comparison, and thus is both a highly laudable move that will provide opportunities for thousands of Oklahoma families. The law however reserves the large credit for tuition and fees at accredited private schools, and Oklahoma has a limited supply of such schools.
An Oklahoma parent wishing to use the credit must find a seat at an accredited private school with seats available in their grade level appropriate for their child. The universe of accredited private schools however is limited- perhaps an eighth of the size numerically of the 1,700 public schools in Oklahoma.
The current stock of private schools in Oklahoma will only go so far in creating a demand driven K-12 system, which will require the onboarding of new private school seats if demanded. Oklahoma has a commission focused on private school accreditation, and snooping around various approved accreditation websites makes accreditation sound like a multi-year process.
Until a school receives accreditation, they will be in competition with schools whose students can receive credits. I have no idea whether lawmakers included this provision at the behest of incumbent accredited private schools, but you do not need a graduate degree in political science to figure out who might lobby against changing this rule (both Baptists and Bootleggers). Fortunately, this Baptist and Bootlegger adjacent provision has straightforward fixes, such as including schools in the process of seeking accreditation, or (better yet) eliminating the accreditation provision entirely.
A great many teachers have had it with administration and bureaucracy and yearn to run a school of their own. Our policies must avoid anti-competitive provisions if we are going to give them the opportunity they deserve. Bootlegger provisions, including provisions that require accredited schools, or require ESA families to spend money at private schools before anything else, should be held in suspicion.
