Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship opponents fall short with court ruling

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma County district court judge yesterday ruled that using publicly funded scholarships for students with special needs at a private sectarian school was unconstitutional. However, the narrowly tailored decision held that scholarships from the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act could be used at private secular and religiously-affiliated schools.

The ruling is a setback for the plaintiffs who were asking the judge to strike down the entire law. Instead, the judge upheld the basic program as constitutional with a “narrow” exception.

Pruitt Will Appeal Ruling in Lawsuit Challenging Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities

OKLAHOMA CITY – Attorney General Scott Pruitt said Thursday he would appeal a ruling that invalidated a portion of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program, which allows parents of children with disabilities to obtain scholarship money from the state to fund their child’s attendance at a school of their choosing.

A district court judge ruled funds from the scholarship program cannot be used to send students with disabilities to sectarian schools. The judge's order is stayed pending appeal, which means the scholarship program remains unchanged for now.

“This scholarship program empowers parents of children with disabilities to obtain scholarship monies from the state to fund their child’s enrollment and attendance in a private school of their choosing,” Attorney General Pruitt said. “Prohibiting the use of Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship funds from being used to send students with disabilities to sectarian schools would require the state to discriminate against those schools. That is highly troublesome and why we will appeal the ruling.”

Parental choice in education a topic in OEA questionnaire

State Superintendent Janet Barresi's campaign today posted her responses to an Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) candidate questionnaire. Barresi answered questions on several areas of education policy, including school choice.

The OEA is the state's largest teachers' union and opposed Barresi in the 2010 state superintendent’s race. The OEA also consistently opposes legislative efforts to provide greater educational options to parents.

Barresi answered a very revealing question about publicly funded educational choice programs:

Q. What are your feelings about using public money to support private schools through voucher programs, tax credits, and other mechanisms?

A. My goal is to make sure our public schools are the first choice of every Oklahoma parent. Until that day, I want to give parents as many choices as possible. I have worked to increase funding for the Lindsay Nicole Henry Scholarships so that parents of those with learning challenges have better options for their students to have the same success as everyone else. There is still more we can do. Every child, every parent should have the opportunity to choose the school that best fits their specific needs, and no child should be confined to a failing school. I won’t rest until that’s a reality.

The premise of the OEA's question is absurd and a clear example of misplaced focus. The union sees programs like the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships Act as existing to support private schools over public schools. They see education in terms of institutional schools -- not individual students.

My two children attend public schools. We do so not out of a sense of obligation to support the public institutions and provide employment for union members who believe they know better than my wife and I do what is best for our children.

Children are more than mere funding units for educational institutions. Common sense dictates that the institutions exist for the benefit of schoolchildren. The children do not exist for the benefit of the system of public schools.

Following the logic of the OEA's question, it must hold that the per pupil revenue generated by students attending public school is for the purpose of supporting that school, regardless of the service it provides to students.

The OEA’s focus is not on providing children with educational services, but with protecting their turf. The union bosses concern themselves with imagined harm to their dues-paying members while ignoring the very real harm of denying help to students who need a different educational environment.

The membership concerns of the teachers' union should not take priority over the sacred right and duty of parents to direct the education of their children.

As the author of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act, I’m grateful to Supt. Barresi for her steadfast support of this important, student-centered education program.

Barresi, along with the State Department of Education and the State Board of Education, are defendants in a new lawsuit filed by educators challenging the constitutionality of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program. I'm working with Barresi and Attorney General Scott Pruitt to defend this law against those who believe that the children exist to support the system and dues paying union members.

Call me naïve, but I think education should be focused on students.

Nelson Reacts to New Lawsuit against Special Needs Scholarships Law

OKLAHOMA CITY – A new legal challenge to the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act filed yesterday represents “ideological hostility to the rights of parents to direct the education of their children,” according to the author of the bill that created the scholarships.

State Rep. Jason Nelson said the program helps children with special needs attend a private school of their choice by providing state-funded scholarships. It has been in place for three years. A lawsuit filed by two Tulsa-area school districts was tossed out by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2012 on the grounds that schools cannot sue on behalf of taxpayers. The new lawsuit targets the state superintendent, the state department of education and the state board of education. The Obama Administration filed a lawsuit against a similar law in Louisiana this year.

“I first heard about this latest lawsuit from a parent who is concerned about what will happen to her child now,” said Nelson, R-Oklahoma City. “This new lawsuit mirrors the previous one that was struck down just this past fall and many of the plaintiffs have ties to school districts but are suing as individuals this time.”

Nelson said there are two things about the lawsuit that stand out to him.

“First and most importantly, not one of the plaintiffs has a child with special needs in the public school system where the school is failing to meet the needs of their child,” Nelson said. “None of them are facing the very real circumstances faced by parents of more than 200 children who use the Henry scholarship program because the needs of their children were not being met.

“Second, none of the plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated any interest or willingness to address the legitimate concerns expressed about challenges in public schools faced by parents of the students who are currently using the Lindsey Henry Scholarship.

“There’s a fundamental disagreement here. Children do not exist to fund the institutions. The institutions exist to support and educate the children and when that doesn't happen, regardless of the reason, we have a moral obligation to do whatever is necessary to ensure those children get the education they need and that the taxpayers are paying for, regardless of where they receive that education.

“This law has benefitted the public school system by increasing per-pupil spending on students in the public school system every year it's been in existence. This is a fact that is easily demonstrated but universally ignored by opponents. One of the plaintiffs has a background in school finance. I’m amazed this fact has escaped him.”

Nelson noted that the lead plaintiff is employed by Oral Roberts University, which was allocated more than $380,000 in state-funded scholarships through the Oklahoma Tuition Equalization Grant program, or OTEG, for the current academic year.

“OTEG is virtually identical to the Henry Scholarship Program,” Nelson said. “If the lead plaintiff is so offended by the Lindsey Henry Scholarship Program why has he not challenged the OTEG law that he benefits from – I would be embarrassed. He must be familiar with Jesus’ teaching, ‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?’

“If you use their actions as a guide, the opposition here and in the Louisiana case is about an ideological hostility to the rights of parents to direct the education of their children – not about legitimate legal concerns. There are many state programs that do exactly what the plaintiffs here claim is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs simply can’t see that this is not about funding institutions but about ensuring children get the best education possible regardless of where they get that education.”

Nelson said he looks forward to working with state Superintendent Janet Barresi, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the state Board of Education, parents and other supporters to vigorously defend the law. 

“The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program is a constitutional, common sense law that benefits the students using the program, the public school system and the taxpayers,” Nelson said. “I’m confident the law will ultimately be upheld.”

Short documentary about the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program

Follow-up Documentary on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships Released

OKLAHOMA CAPITOL -- The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs has released a new ten minute documentary following up with three students with special needs who have been using the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act for the last year. 

Lindsey Nicole Henry Stories, Part 2 takes a look at how Chloe, Rob and Phylicia are doing after they were featured in a powerful twenty-five minute documentary released a year ago. The benefits of the program have exceeded my expectations. 

Legislation to Deter School Lawsuits Against Students, Parents Passed House

OKLAHOMA CITY –Legislation that would discourage “abusive and frivolous” lawsuits by schools districts passed out of the House of Representatives today and now heads to the Senate.

House Bill 2160, by State Rep. Jason Nelson, would require school districts to pay students’ and parents’ court costs and attorney fees when they initiate civil action or proceedings against students or parents.

“We saw a disgusting abuse of power when the leaders of Jenks and Union schools targeted the parents of special-needs children with a completely bogus lawsuit that could only be understood as an intimidation tactic,” said Nelson, R-Oklahoma City. “I’ve visited with numerous people who shudder at the idea of a school district suing parents. These two districts eventually lost the case upon appeal with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, but it still angers me that they put these families through such an ordeal. The only thing that the parents could have been guilty of was doing what they thought was best for their child with special needs.”

The Jenks and Union school boards voted to sue the state attorney general to challenge the successful Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act. They never filed that lawsuit, but instead, without ever specifically voting to do so, sued parents who legally obtained scholarships through the new program.

“These two school boards had earlier voted to ignore the new State law and later voted to sue the attorney general to get their question in front of a judge,” Nelson said. “When that didn’t work they sued the parents without ever voting to do so specifically. They left that decision to the school superintendent and the school’s law firm. They didn’t even have the courage to vote in a board meeting to sue parents – it was shameful.”

Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships allow a student with a disability (such as Down syndrome or Autism) who has an individualized education program (IEP) to receive state-funded scholarships to attend a private school that parents believe can better serve their child. The scholarships come from the amount of money already designated for the education of those children.

Nelson said his legislation would deter schools from filing such lawsuits, which are inappropriate because schools serve the public and should not be persecuting students and parents.

“I never doubted that the lawsuit was inappropriate and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed that a school board should not be suing parents. My bill says that if a school district sues parents again, they will have to pay the court and attorney costs,” Nelson said.

HB 2160 passed out of the House by a vote of 55-37. The measure now heads to the Senate for consideration.

Tulsa's KOTV interviews parent sued by Jenks, Union Schools

Oklahoma House District 87 - Click here for link to News on 6 full story

NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

Oklahoma Supreme Court decision (Nov. 20, 2012)

Nelson Statement on Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship (Nov. 20, 2012)

Updated: Well established case law says House Bill 3393 is constitutional (Nov. 20, 2012)

AG Statement on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Decision (Nov. 20, 2012)

Documentary on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship (Aug. 1, 2012)

Jenks and Union Schools Continue Vendetta Against Children with Special Needs (Sept. 7, 2011)

Nelson Statement on Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Jason Nelson, R-Oklahoma City, issued the following statement regarding the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling today that upheld the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, reversing an earlier decision by a Tulsa district judge:

“The families who have been sued by the Jenks and Tulsa Union school districts for using the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program have even more reason to be thankful this Thanksgiving weekend. The decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court validates what I and many other people have been saying since the lawsuit was filed – that the school districts lack standing and that their vindictive actions against these parents were without merit. I am grateful to the attorneys who have stood with these parents for their hard work and effective legal defense of the scholarship program.

“As recently as last week, I received an emotional e-mail from a parent who detailed how being able to use the scholarship has changed their child’s life for the better. I’ve never doubted that we were right on the law and it’s nice to have the confirmation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This is a program that saves the public school system money while benefiting children with special needs by giving them more educational options that meet their unique needs. Today’s ruling will allow these families to breathe a sigh of relief after months of uncertainty.”

Jenks and Union Schools Continue Vendetta Against Children with Special Needs (September 7, 2011)

Updated: Well established case law says House Bill 3393 is constitutional

Oklahoma Capitol - It is well established case law that a legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution (1). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has consistently held that statutes should be construed whenever possible so as to uphold their constitutionality(2). There is no indication that the provisions of HB 3393 are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Other scholarship programs that were “neutral” or “of direct benefit to students” have been upheld by the Supreme Court and other courts. The unconstitutionality of a statute may not be urged by resort to hypothetical applications (3).

The rules on construing legislative language have also been clearly set by the courts. Construction which would render the legislation absurd must be avoided; rational constructions are favored if language fairly permits (4). 

(1) Matter of Daniel Deborah and Leslie H., Okl, 591 P 2d 1175 (1979); In re Napier, Okl. , 532 P 2d 423 (1975).

(2) City of Norman v. Liddell, Okl., 596 P 2d 879 (1979); Newman v. Tax Commission, Okl., 596 P 2d 530 (1979); Post Oak Oil Co. v. Okla. Tax Commission, Okl., 575 P 2d 964 (1978); Ruble v. Redden, Okl., 517 P 2d 1124 (1973).

(3) In re Napier, Okl., 532 P 2d 423 (1975).

(4) In re Vrooman's Estate, 206 Okl. 8 , 240 P 2d 754 (1954); John C. Winston Co. v. Vaughan, 11 F. Supp. 954 (W.D.Okl. 1935) affmd. Vaughan v. John C. Winston Co., 83 F.2d 370 (10th Cir. 1936); City of Enid v. Champlin Refining Co., 112 Okl. 168, 240 P. 604 (1925).

AG Statement on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Decision

Attorney General Scott Pruitt

Oklahoma City - Attorney General Scott Pruitt today issued the following statement regarding the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision on the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act:

"From the beginning, we believed it was improper for these school districts to sue the parents of special needs children simply for following the law. We are pleased Oklahoma’s Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that these school districts lacked standing to make their claims against the children’s families. The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Act is the law and districts must follow the law." 

Ultimate Education Accountability: Henry Scholarships

Oklahoma Capitol - (Commentary) I received an anonymous comment on a blog post recently implying the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program lacks accountability. That’s news to me and to the parents and students using the program.

The writer complained the program “allows parents to take public dollars and remove their students to a private curriculum ... with no accountability.” They said this alleged lack of accountability has not been addressed in the debate surrounding this law.

The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Act allows students with a disability on an individualized education program (IEP) to receive state-funded scholarships to attend private school. The scholarships are funded with money already designated for the child’s education.

The issue of accountability has been addressed innumerable times by me and other supporters of the program - including parents. The problem is not that supporters have failed to address the issue, but that opponents of the program don’t like the answer. What is the answer, and why don’t they like it?

In some respects, private schools are accountable just like public schools. Both public and private schools answer to boards. The anonymous writer, who posts under the pseudonym okeducationtruths, acknowledges that private schools, like public schools, must also be accredited by the State Department of Education.

State Department of Education rules require that the accreditation standards of private schools “must be comparable with the State Board of Education's standards for public schools in terms of the applicable quality indicators.” State requirements for private school accreditation, in part, are as follows:

“The program of the school shall be designed in the best interests of the students, and students are admitted only when it has been determined that there are reasonable expectations that the students' best interests can be served. The program, while appropriately adjusted to serve the best interest of its students and to be consistent with the school's philosophy and objectives, complies with applicable rules of the State Board of Education, especially in the following areas: (i) Length of the school day and school year; (ii) The basic skills subjects in the elementary curriculum including subjects which constitute a well-balanced elementary curriculum; instructional time requirements and essential elements which are comparable to those required in the like subjects at equivalent grade levels in the public school system; student academic records; and achievement levels required for promotion; and (iii) The appropriate subjects in the secondary curriculum, including sequencing of courses for which transferability of credit may be sought from the state; essential elements which are comparable to those required in the like subjects and courses at equivalent grade levels by the state; student academic records; and achievement levels necessary for the awarding of credits and diplomas.” Also, “Professional staff members must hold degrees and be qualified by preparation or experience for positions they hold and for the work to which they are assigned.”

Private schools are also accountable to parents in a way that public schools are not. If parents are unhappy with a private school, they can take their child and corresponding funds elsewhere.

Without the scholarship, parents who are dissatisfied with their child’s public education, and who don’t have the means to move to a different district or pay out-of-pocket for private school find their child stuck in a public school unwilling or unable to meet their educational needs.

Opponents complain private schools aren’t regulated exactly like public schools. The anonymous protest left on this blog says private schools “do not have to teach the state-legislated curriculum or take state-mandated tests.” To that charge I respond, yes, private schools are different from public schools. 

The public school system is a government monopoly that can be unresponsive to the needs of some students. It is financially difficult, if not impossible, for most parents of children with special-needs who are dissatisfied with their child’s public education to leave their assigned public school. The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship law provides a new option for special-needs students in such situations. As long as public schools are effectively a monopoly, they will need to be regulated. 

Private schools are not a monopoly. Unhappy private school patrons can easily leave a poor performing private school. So, the need to regulate these schools is considerably less. Still, there are reasonable regulation and expectations placed on private schools that participate in the scholarship program. It is common sense to most people that when consumers have more choices there is less need for regulation.

When public schools fail students, they are given several years to attempt improvement. They also use this time to fill the Capitol with lobbyists to make excuses and delay intervention. Poor performing private schools simply lose paying students and go out of existence. 

What really offends opponents of the program is the Henry Scholarship law empowers parents of special-needs students to hold schools accountable - a role the education establishment believes should be solely theirs.

Why don’t opponents of the program accept the answer?

Some opponents, including legislators, public school administrators and others, have been so bold as to publicly criticize parents who make use of the program as ignorant and not acting in the best interest of their children.

The website for Jenks Public Schools, one of two districts suing parents for participating in the program, states: 

“[E]ducators are greatly concerned at the very real possibility that a student with special needs can be pulled out of a public school and placed in a private school that may not offer any Special Education services.”

It’s important to remember that parents are the decision makers in the scholarship program. If a student is “pulled out of a public school and placed in a private school” it is because the parents believe it is best for their child.

Julie Blake, the director of student programs at Jenks, is more direct in her opinion that parents should not be making important decision such as choosing where their child attends school.

"Parents, I'm afraid, are unaware what they are giving up. Our concern is that our students are out there without anyone watching over them."

It’s as if the children really belong to the public schools system and are simply lent to parents for the evening and summer break. Educators at Jenks evidently don’t think parents are the appropriate people to make such important decisions on behalf of the public school system’s children. 

Union Public Schools’ Superintendent Cathy Burden echoes the concern about allowing parents to decide where their child attends school.

“[Parents] are giving up due process rights, continued IEP, auxiliary services, free and appropriate education, annual evaluations. ... There are a variety of things guaranteed to students and parents that would be lost."

They assume that parents aren’t familiar with these “guaranteed” services. These public school services are required by the federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA was necessary to protect special-needs students in public schools. The goal has been to ensure children with special-needs get the education they deserve because historically they had not.

Former State Rep. Neil Brannon, D-Arkoma, said during his debate against the program on the House floor, “[Parents] may think they know what’s best, but do they?”

Have we drifted so far as a society that parents aren’t considered capable of making important decisions for their children? Are parents incapable of holding a school accountable if they are economically empowered to choose the school their child attends?

I know parents who choose to use the program love their children more than the public school system does and parents are perfectly capable of making big decisions based on the best interests of their child.

A few parents have used the scholarship to transfer their child to a private school only to later transfer back to the public school. Is the decision by these parents to send their child back to public school also suspect?

There is a definite lack of accountability in special education programs in public schools - or at least a discernible lack of interest. Of the eight school boards that originally voted to ignore the law, including the two boards currently suing parents, I am aware of only two school board members who have wondered why parents and students would want to leave and attempted to look into the matter. This is very troubling. There is no apparent interest among these school boards to investigate the reasons some parents are dissatisfied. The Board for Tulsa Public Schools, at the request of the two board members I mentioned, said they would look into parents’ concerns. I’m not aware of any reports resulting from this promise.

Privates schools participating in the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act are held accountable through the accreditation process, oversight from their boards and ultimately the parents who choose the school for their child. There is accountability - opponents just don’t like the program. 

Who better than parents to ultimately make these decisions and hold schools accountable? 

Supporters of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships speak out

My thanks to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs for hosting a great event at the University of Central Oklahoma last week. OCPA hosted a screening of a new documentary about the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program. Supporters turned out to express their enthusiasm and personal connection to Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship recipients. Several of these attendees went "on the blue carpet with OCPA" to answer a simple question: "Why the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program?"

Commentary: How do you know private schools do it better?

This is a question I’m asked repeatedly regarding the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program. This unedited question is copied straight from an email I received.

There are two ways to answer this question - a long answer and a short answer. I’ll give both.

The first answer: I assume that do it better really means provide a better education. Certainly that is important but there is another consideration for many parents. It could, and probably should, also refer to doing a better job of protecting children with special-needs from bullying. Bullying unaddressed by educators in some public schools is the reason many parents decide to use the scholarship - not academic reasons.

Most detractors don’t know that participating private schools have to meet certain standards. For instance, private schools that choose to participate in the program must meet accreditation standards set by the State Board of Education. Unlike poor performing public schools, private schools that do a bad job educating children run out of paying customers because students can take their money to a school that does it better.

The question also seems to assume that what I think about private schools matters to parents. I’m not the one choosing which children participate or which private school they will attend. The law does not grant me the responsibility of arbitrarily assigning participating children to specific private schools by some nonsensical system such as basing it on their home address. That is how children are currently assigned to schools in the public system. In the Henry Scholarship program, parents are solely responsible for choosing the private school their child will attend.

The Lindsey Nicole Henry Program makes an assumption, which I believe to be  accurate, that parents who choose to use the program love their children more than the public school system does and that parents are perfectly capable of making big decisions that are in the best interest of their child. In this case, it is the process of researching and selecting a suitable private school.

The question is always general in nature. Parents are not choosing between an idea like public schools and a different idea such as private schools. Parents who are using the program are choosing to transfer a particular child from a specific public school to a specific private school. So the answer to the question depends not on a general idea, but on which specific private school is in question.

The law does make a general value judgement: More options are better than fewer options. Parents make the specific value judgments of whether to participate in the program and what private school their child will attend.

At this point, the question has been answered but the answer is longer than necessary. I usually just give a one sentence answer styled as a question. I think it makes my point perfectly if children are our first concern.

How do you know the public school to which a child is assigned does it better?

New Documentary on Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Posted

Update: On Nov. 20, 2012, the Oklahoma Supreme Court tossed out the lawsuit against the parents of student with special needs.

Please take time to watch this powerful 25 minute documentary and then share it with your friends and social media networks. 

Earlier this year a district judge in Tulsa County ruled that this life-changing special education school choice program was unconstitutional. The judge gave no basis for the decision. The judge did allow the program to continue during appeal. 

The case is currently on appeal with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Supporters, and some who oppose the program, asked in separate requests in June for permission to file additional legal briefs in the case. The attorney general and the parents who were sued by two public school districts for using the program have also asked for the opportunity to present oral argument to the court. The Supreme Court has not addressed these requests. 

The Court could issue a decision any day without addressing the pending requests. 

The documentary was shown for the first time last night before a public audience on the University of Central Oklahoma campus. The showing was followed by a panel discussion on the status of the program. 

I will be providing timely updates on this blog as events unfold and I also recommend that you visit https://www.facebook.com/HenryScholarships to learn more and share your stories. 

Thank you for taking the time to watch this important documentary and to learn more about this successful but threatened program. 

Henry Scholarships Documentary Showing Planned Next Week

The public is invited to a showing of a 30-minute documentary that describes how the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships are changing the lives of Oklahoma families. The showing will be followed by a panel discussion on the future of the scholarships with law professor Andrew Spiropoulos and state Rep. Jason Nelson.

The even will be held Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 7:00 PM at: 

Constitution Hall, Nigh University Center, University of Central Oklahoma
100 North University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034

Tickets are free but space is limited. Visit http://henryscholarships.eventbrite.com/ to reserve your seat. 

"Chloe" -- A Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Story

"Phylicia" -- A Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Story

Please share this video about the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act. 

This simple program is changing the lives of many children in Oklahoma for the better. A district judge ruled earlier this year that the 2010 law is unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed earlier this week to hear an appeal by parents who are being sued by two school districts for using the program to help their children. I hope you will support this program and let others know you think it is important that it be protected for the sake of special-needs children now and in the future. 

Lindsey Henry Scholarship lawsuit a defining case and controversy

By Andrew C. Spiropoulos 

The Journal Record
June 7, 2012

The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear the appeal by parents of disabled children of the decision by a state district court judge that the state’s Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship for Students with Disabilities is unconstitutional because it violates our state constitution’s provision governing the proper relationship between religion and the state.

There is, however, another vital constitutional principle at stake in this case. Some consider this other principle to be a legal technicality, a senseless barrier preventing the courts from settling our political controversies. But adhering to this principle is indispensable to the maintenance of the rule of law, and bending or even ignoring it, as the school districts in this case have asked the courts to do, threatens the legitimacy of judicial authority.

Americans are willing to grant judges their great authority to have the final say on the meaning of the law on the condition that they only decide questions that are properly committed to them. A judge only may act when presented with what the U.S. Constitution calls a genuine “case or controversy.”

When is there a real case and controversy? The principle is easy to state, but hard to faithfully follow. Judges should only exercise their authority when the person or entity seeking relief has been injured by the defendant and the court, by issuing an order to the defendant, can remedy the harm.

In this case, the families who decided that the public schools failed to meet the needs of their children removed them from the public schools and asked the state Department of Education for a scholarship to attend a private school. The schools argue that they are hurt by the law because the law establishing the scholarship instructs the department to deduct the total amount of scholarship money from the general school aid budget. The schools, therefore, allege that, eventually, they will receive less money because of the scholarship program.

But that’s not true at all. The schools aren’t getting less money because of the scholarship program – no one is taking money from their account and giving it to the private schools. Remember that school aid is calculated per enrolled student. The schools are getting less aid because they have fewer students. It doesn’t matter why these parents left the school. No matter what, the result would be the same.

The schools, in essence, are suing the parents for doing what they had every right to do – leave the public schools. Nothing the parents have done, no more than when parents decide to leave the state for better economic opportunities, constitutes a legal injury to the schools.

Furthermore, even if the court invalidates the scholarship, it is unlikely that parents will send their children back to the place where they, at best, were neglected, and, at worst, bullied and abused. Even if the state is no longer allowed to help these parents, the court has no power to remedy the schools’ alleged harm. The public schools will still have fewer students and proportionately lower funding.

There is no need for the courts to involve themselves in this bitter political dispute. These school districts haven’t suffered any legal injury; they just don’t like the public policy embodied in the program and want the courts to use their power, legitimately or not, to impose their view on the majority.

Andrew C. Spiropoulos is a professor of law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law and the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

60 Seconds From Parents Supporting A Program That Works

Please share this 60 second video about the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act. 

This simple program is changing the lives of many children in Oklahoma for the better. A district judge ruled earlier this year that the 2010 law is unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed earlier this week to hear an appeal by parents who are being sued by two school districts for using the program to help their children. I hope you will support this program and let others know you think it is important that it be protected for the sake of special-needs children now and in the future. 

Nelson "Flashpoint" Guest, DHS & Henry Scholarships Topics

I was the guest on the KFOR political news show "Flashpoint" yesterday. We discussed the Department of Human Services reforms and the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act. 


2nd Segment on the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships



3rd Segment on DHS Reforms