As Oklahoma lawmakers have voted to expand school-choice opportunities in recent years, allowing parents to use tax credits or tax dollars to pay for private-school tuition, opponents have been vocal in their criticism.

But the arguments put forth by school-choice opponents have often been contradictory, with one legislator’s arguments negating the claims made by another opponent.

That pattern became particularly evident in this year’s debate over legislation to reduce the bureaucratic barriers involved in the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities (LNH) program. The LNH program allows students to use state tax dollars to pay for private-school tuition, and primarily benefits children with special needs, such as autism.

Senate Bill 105, by state Sen. Julie Daniels and state Rep. Chad Caldwell, eliminates a requirement that Oklahoma children spend one year in public school before qualifying for an LNH scholarship.

Supporters of SB 105 noted that children are often diagnosed with special needs before spending a year in public school, and that many public schools are not equipped to serve the unique needs of certain children.

But opponents—some of them, anyway—argued there is no real reason for the family of any child with special needs to want an option aside from their local public school.

“Kiddos with disabilities are served well in their public schools,” said state Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City.

State Rep. John Waldron, D-Tulsa, made a similar argument when the LNH bill was debated in the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

“Students with special needs choose public schools at a higher rate than private schools, at a ratio of about 18 percent of the public-school population versus 10 percent of the private-school population,” Waldron said. “Parents are choosing the public-school system because the public-school system is required to meet the needs of every kid. And I believe, Mister Speaker, that on the whole they do an excellent job.”

State data undermine claims of uniform excellence, however.

According to state tests, just 14.8 percent of all students with disabilities in Oklahoma public schools tested at grade level in English in 2024, with the rate much lower in some districts. Just 12.4 percent of students with disabilities statewide were proficient in math, and 11.9 percent in science.

Other LNH opponents took a different tack and described special-needs programs in public schools in near-apocalyptic terms—but still opposed allowing families to access private schools through school-choice programs, claiming that would harm public schools.

“Our special-education systems are underfunded,” declared state Sen. Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City. “The ratios are horrible. Our teachers are trying so hard, but they’re very burned out. They do not have assistance. They have huge numbers in their classroom. My kid is integrated into the classroom. He barely sees the person who’s officially in charge of him because she’s so stretched. She’s watching over 100 students who are in various classrooms.”

Issues of potential abuse of children with special needs were also raised during debate this year on a bill that, while unrelated to school choice, focused on many children who might benefit from the LNH program.

On Feb. 25, senators debated legislation to prohibit corporal punishment for students with a disability as defined by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

During that debate, state Sen. Mary Boren, D-Norman, described a public-school system where the treatment of students, including children with special needs, can be extreme. Boren warned that Oklahoma public schools can employ corporal punishment for “missing a spelling word,” “getting back late from music class,” or rolling their eyes.

Boren, who previously worked as a school counselor and lawyer, also said schools are allowed to slap children.

“That is legal, currently, in Oklahoma law,” Boren said.

She said corporal punishment can also include striking a child “anywhere from your knees all the way up to the middle of your back.”

And, she said, public-school officials are allowed to use multiple forms of corporal punishment on a child, including children with special needs, and are not limited to giving swats on a child’s behind.

“It could be anything,” Boren said. “It could be grabbing an arm until it turns red. It could be grabbing an ear. It could be anything, any part of the body could be hit, for corporal punishment. So what I wanted to say to y’all is y’all are making some assumptions about these schools’ boundaries and internal guidelines that don’t show up on court day. Because when you show up on court day and you’re in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit, the assumption was my kid is going to get three swats with a ping-pong paddle for throwing spaghetti on the ceiling, and what happens is they get 15 swats with the belt or they’re slapped in the face and they have bruises all over their face. That’s what happens on million-dollar court day.”

Boren was among those who voted in opposition to SB 105 when the LNH bill was heard in the Oklahoma Senate on March 11.

Taken as a whole, school-choice opponents have argued that public schools lack trained staff, stuff children with special needs into overcrowded classrooms, and devote far too little time to those students, yet provide a consistently great, high-quality education to those kids, although the children may be badly abused at a public school.

Those arguments have not been persuasive to families whose children could qualify for LNH scholarships and who have lived the reality of dealing with local schools.

Karly McEntire’s oldest daughter was diagnosed with dyslexia, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders (PANDAS)—but only after much foot-dragging from her public school.

“We found out her diagnoses later on. I think she was in second grade at the time,” McEntire said. “She had done public school, and we weren’t able to get the supports she needed at that time. We begged and begged for evaluations, and they wouldn’t do it. It was a huge mess.”

The family tried homeschooling and private school to get their child the support she needed, not knowing about the LNH program. Then the family learned about Trinity School at Edgemere, which is devoted to children with their daughter’s type of learning challenges. However, because Trinity specializes in serving children with special needs with highly trained staff, the school’s tuition runs more than $16,000.

That might have placed the school out of reach for the McEntire family, if not for the LNH program. However, even as the family learned of the existence of Trinity and the LNH program, they also learned their daughter no longer qualified because of the one-year public-school requirement.

“We had to put her back in public school in fourth grade to qualify her for LNH to go to Trinity,” McEntire said. “Her mental health had suffered severely at that point, and having to have her change friend groups yet again, just to be somewhere temporarily, to move again, was really traumatic and really messed with her mental health.”

Kandice Jeske lived through a similar scenario.

“We had to play the Lindsey Nicole games this year for my daughter, who went undiagnosed with dyslexia and dysgraphia in public schools all the way through third grade,” Jeske said.

McEntire’s middle child, now in second grade, has been diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD. However, because the diagnosis occurred early in her educational journey, and because the middle child’s challenges are not as great as those of her older sibling, the public-school system has been able to serve her.

“There’s other kids where public (school) can be great in so many areas and provide great support,” McEntire said, “but there’s some cases of children that are more severe that need additional help than what public school can provide, and that was my oldest (daughter).”

Jeske, who advocated for the passage of SB 105, watched the legislative debate on the bill. Despite the otherwise contradictory arguments put forward by school-choice opponents, she noted there was one link tying their arguments together.

“That whole debate, they were fighting for funding of systems,” Jeske said. “There were very few people who were arguing for my child. I didn’t see my child on that floor. I didn’t hear arguments for my child. I heard arguments for superintendents. I heard arguments for school systems that failed my child. So as a parent listening to those arguments, can you imagine how frustrating that was?”