House fights over corporal punishment of Oklahoma disabled children, sends ban to governor
Lori Wathen holds a paddle printed with the word "no" to oppose the practice of corporal punishment in schools before an interim study on the subject on Oct. 21. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — House lawmakers on Wednesday fought over whether educators should be able to physically discipline disabled students before ultimately voting to send a bill prohibiting the practice to the governor.
Senate Bill 364 prohibits school personnel from 'hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping' or using any other physical force on a student with a federally recognized and protected disability. Existing state law only prohibits schools from administering corporal punishments on students with the 'most significant cognitive disabilities.'
'It's really sad, the broad links people will go to to try to twist and turn words to continue to allow people to slap, choke, pull hair, cause bruises, push, shove, and anything else that they can do to a kid with special needs,' said Rep. Anthony Moore, R-Clinton, the bill's author .
He said only a small percentage of Oklahoma districts — around 60 that he knows of — still allow corporal punishment. But Moore quickly ticked off a list of disabled children who have been choked or paddled by school personnel without parental permission. Moore said he was not going to publicly name the districts.
Nothing in the measure prohibits parents from administering corporal punishment on their disabled children, but schools could not, he said.
'I don't think a kid with Down syndrome should be spanked,' Moore said. 'I don't think a kid with epilepsy should be beaten. I don't think a kid with autism should be choked.'
Moore said he's a devout Christian, a deacon in his church, and administers corporal punishment on his own children. But he said it is appalling that people cite the Bible to justify choking a child with special needs.
'It makes me ashamed to be someone that might be categorized with that person,' he said
House lawmakers have previously garnered national attention for refusing to put such a ban into state law. Administering corporal punishment on disabled children has been banned by the State Department of Education since 2020. Federal records show hundreds of Oklahoma children with disabilities were physically disciplined during the 2020-21 school year.
Rep. Jim Olsen, R-Roland, said the language of the bill passed Wednesday is nearly identical to the previous measure that failed to advance out of the same chamber about two years ago.
Olsen said the prior one didn't advance because of concerns that the number of protected students was too broad and because it stripped away parental power and local control.
Those concerns remain, he said.
There are certainly children who should never have corporal punishment used on them, but Senate Bill 364's prohibition is too broad because in addition to protecting the profoundly disabled, it also includes students who suffer from hearing, speech and visibility impairments and serious emotional disturbances, Olsen said.
'If you had a 10-year-old boy that was physically healthy, intellectually normal, and he couldn't say his R's correctly, under the provisions of this bill, he would be prohibited, even if the parents wanted it, he would be prohibited from having corporal punishment used on him,' he said. 'No exceptions.'
He said the Bible references that the 'rod and reproof gives wisdom, but a child left to himself brings his mother to shame.'
'I have observed over the years that when we get to thinking that we're smarter than the Bible that doesn't turn out very well,' he said.
Rep. Cynthia Roe, R-Lindsay, said it's appalling that lawmakers are having to have a conversation about 'inflicting suffering on a child that has no idea what is happening.'
She said multiple studies show that students with disabilities have corporal punishment applied at disproportionately higher rates than their non-disabled peers. Multiple child psychology organizations oppose 'beating a kid in school,' and most experts recommend non-violent methods to address inappropriate behavior in school, Roe said.
Roe, who is also a child abuse examiner, said corporal punishment signals to a child that the way to settle conflict is by inflicting physical force and pain and that it's OK to 'just slug somebody in the face because you don't agree with what they're saying.'
She said lawmakers talk about protecting their children from predators, but are not protecting vulnerable children from punishments they can't understand.
'They don't realize that the behavior they're exhibiting is not appropriate, and they're not understanding that getting their butt beat is because of the behavior they just exhibited,' Roe said.
But Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, said lawmakers are stripping parents of the ability to permit the use of an effective discipline method that they know will 'get my child's attention.'
The bill also does nothing to change the fact that children who aren't diagnosed with a disability can still be subjected to physical discipline in school, he said.
West said lawmakers should be looking at school corporal punishment usage in totality, not just one part.
The bill leaves the door open for a broad interpretation, and West said he fears that if a school district does allow corporal punishment, there's a 'very, very strong chance that a parent could sue, even if they had given permission.'
The bill, which awaits a decision from Gov. Kevin Stitt, passed 61-23.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
Epoch Times
21 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.
27 minutes ago
Here are taxes that Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would repeal
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is now in the Senate would pay for President Donald Trump's campaign promises to make his 2017 tax cuts permanent, cut other taxes and boost spending for border security and defense. Republican fiscal hawks say they can't vote for the bill in its current state because it will add to the deficit -- by $2.4 trillion, according to a Congressional Budget estimate released Wednesday. In addition to no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, the bill would also repeal federal excise taxes on gun silencers and tanning services. Here's a breakdown of those cuts in the current form of the bill: Making Trump tax cuts permanent: Because this is an extension of cuts in place since 2017, the average taxpayer would largely not see a change, unless the cuts were not renewed. No tax on tips and overtime: This was one of Trump's major campaign promises -- exempting workers who receive tips from paying federal income taxes on them, as long as they make less than $160,000 a year. The same income threshold would apply to exemptions for overtime pay and there is no cap on how much OT pay workers could claim. Both tax breaks would expire at the end of 2028 after Trump leaves office. Trump savings accounts: The bill creates so-called 'Trump savings accounts' for parents to open for their newborn children. The contribution limit for any taxable year is $5,000. The government would provide an initial deposit of $1,000 for each newborn. Raising the SALT cap: The bill raises the tax deduction limit for state and local taxes from $10,000 to $40,000 for joint filers making less than $500,000 per year. The cap would increase by 1% each year. Republicans from states with high taxes like New York and California pushed House GOP leadership to further increase that cap to give their constituents a break. Fiscal hard-liners in the House warned that increasing the cap would increase the deficit. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already signaled that the cap that came out of the House probably won't survive in the Senate. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to eliminate the SALT cap first imposed by the 2017 tax law he signed during his first term. Removing gun silencer tax: The bill would end the $200 excise tax imposed on the purchase or transfer of silencers and eliminate registration. The tax has been on the books since Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934. This is a major win for the National Rifle Association. Repealing tax on indoor tanning: The legislation would repeal the excise tax on indoor tanning services. The 10% tax was included in the Affordable Care Act and has been in place since 2010. Cuts to green energy incentives: The bill would reduce or eliminate green energy tax credits and other incentives that were hallmarks of President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Tax credits for homeowners who purchase solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal heat pumps, energy efficient windows, and more would be eliminated. For solar and wind power, for example, homeowners are currently eligible for a tax credit worth 30% of the cost of the purchase. The bill also eliminates tax credits for those who purchase new or used electric vehicles -- up to $4,000 for a used EV and $7,500 for new. It also ends a tax incentive for homes and businesses to install EV charging stations. If the bill becomes law, these incentives and others would end at the end of this year. Slashing education programs: The bill would slash $330 billion from student loan spending over the next 10 years. An income-based 'Repayment Assistance Plan' will be the new standard for student loans. It also changes the Pell Grant program for low-income students by increasing the increasing the number of required credits per semester.
