Rep. Nelson Praises Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Ruling

OKLAHOMA CITY –State Rep. Jason Nelson issued the following statement after the Oklahoma Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Act in 2010 does not violate Section 5 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, also referred to as Blaine Amendment. Rep. Nelson was the House author of House Bill 3393 that created the scholarships in 2010.

“I’m relieved and excited for the students and families who now have certainty about the program. I know that they have worried that they would wake up to learn that the law had been struck down but they don’t need to worry any longer. The nearly six year old question has been answered.

“We have always known that we are on the right side of the law, and this ruling today confirms what we have always believed. It is a wonderful program that hurts no one but one that has changed lives for the better. Some parents have told me that it saved their child’s life. They’ve told me that their children were bullied without mercy at school and nothing was being done to stop it. Some of them even feared their children would take their life as a result.

“I am very grateful for the many people who have supported this policy and also those who fought for it in court. In particular, I am grateful to former Governor Brad Henry, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick, Assistant Solicitor General Sara Greenwald and my colleague Senator Patrick Anderson, along with a host of associations and organizations who helped along the way. Finally, I am certainly thankful for the justices of our Supreme Court for their faithfulness to the Constitution in their decision today.”

Pruitt Successfully Defends Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Case

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Lindsey Nicole Henry scholarship program, overturning a district court ruling that held that the program violated Oklahoma's Constitution.

The Lindsey Nicole Henry Act established a scholarship fund for parents of disabled children to receive scholarship money to send their children to a private K-12 school. The scholarships must be used at one of more than 50 participating schools, some of which, but not all, are religious. 

“I have always contended that the Lindsey Nicole Henry scholarship program is constitutional, and with the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, parents of students with disabilities will once again be empowered to seek educational opportunities to help their students learn and succeed,” Attorney General Pruitt said. “The Court’s decision was appropriate to ensure that parents in Oklahoma are given the opportunity to choose a school for their children based on the educational needs of their child, a decision that I firmly believe should be made by parents, and not bureaucrats. I hope that today's ruling, the second time that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected these attacks on the program, will finally put an end to these shameful attacks on a wonderful program.”

Click here for a copy of the Court's opinion. Click here for a copy of the concurring opinion.

Fallin Issues Statement in Response to Oklahoma Supreme Court RulingUpholding Scholarship Program

OKLAHOMA CITY – Governor Mary Fallin today issued this statement after the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Act, which is a scholarship program intended to provide educational options for children with disabilities who live within the state:

“This program saves money for the public school system, while benefiting children with special needs by allowing them to select the educational options that best suits them. This is a victory for students with disabilities across our state and for their families. This also is a victory for education in Oklahoma. All students learn differently, so each of them should have the opportunity to attend a school that offers the best environment for success. This can be accomplished through Education Savings Accounts, which I encourage legislators to approve this session, while still protecting school finances.”

Former Democratic Senator, Jabar Shumate, takes school choice post

OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 8, 2015) - Today the Oklahoma Federation for Children, a state affiliate of the American Federation for Children, the nation’s voice for educational choice, is pleased to announce that former Democratic Oklahoma State Senator Jabar Shumate is joining the staff as Director of Legislative Affairs and State Director for Oklahoma. Shumate resigned from the Oklahoma Senate at the beginning of the year to take on promoting school choice policies in the state full-time.

“We are thrilled to have such a dedicated ally and experienced legislator join our Oklahoma team,” said Bob Sullivan, co-chair of the Oklahoma Federation for Children. “Jabar is committed to extending educational options and choice to every child in Oklahoma, and we are excited that he is joining our efforts to give every child regardless of their background the opportunity to learn in a high-quality setting.”

“Jabar has been a champion for school choice throughout his time in office and we are excited to have him continue to work with us as a member of our staff,” said Russell Perry, co-chair of the Oklahoma Federation for Children. “His hard work and dedication to providing students the opportunity to go to the school that best suits their needs is inspiring and he will be a great addition to the team.”

Since 2012, Shumate served as a Democratic Senator for Oklahoma’s 11th Senate District. He has been an advocate and champion for educational choice throughout his term, and has authored and introduced numerous education bills to the Oklahoma State Senate. Shumate’s legislative experience and keen political insight will be tremendous asset in Oklahoma and throughout the country. Featured at several national conferences, Shuamte is a sought-after speaker in the ed reform community who has addressed legislative leaders throughout the country about the need to break down barriers to educational choice.

The Oklahoma Federation for Children is chaired by Bob Sullivan of Tulsa and Russell Perry of Oklahoma City. The OK Federation for Children works to increase the array and quality of K-12 educational options available to Oklahoma’s children. The Oklahoma Federation for Children is a state-based project of the American Federation for Children, the nation’s voice for educational choice.

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.”

New short documentary about Positive Tomorrows, an OKC private school

Positive Tomorrows is an exclusive private school serving very special children in the Oklahoma City area. This short documentary gives you a glimpse of the school's heart-warming mission in action. Education Savings Account legislation in Oklahoma would help more students in need gain access to schools like Positive Tomorrows. Your help is needed to make this opportunity a reality for more children. 

Lawmakers Unveil Education Savings Account Act

OKLAHOMA CITY – Legislation that would provide education options to families across Oklahoma was unveiled today at a press conference at the Oklahoma State Capitol.

Under House Bill 3398, by state Reps. Jason Nelson and Tom Newell, low-income public school students would be able to receive a portion of the state aid dedicated to their education and use it to expand their education options.

“This is an exciting and timely proposal that will help address one of our state’s most pressing and challenging problems – the effects of poverty on our families,” said Nelson, R-Oklahoma City. “Two thirds of the births of children in our state are paid for by Medicaid. More than 60 percent of the public school students in our state are eligible for free or reduced price lunches. Educators I’ve talked to say that students living in poverty present the greatest challenge in our education system. This bill would begin to help these children and help schools with one of their greatest challenges.”

“If you are a parent who has the means to pay for education alternatives, you have true freedom over how your child is educated,” said Newell, R-Seminole. “If you have a lower income, your options are more limited. This legislation is about expanding those options for low-income families.”

Under the legislation, students eligible for free or reduced price lunch under federal guidelines would be eligible to receive 90 percent of the funding they would have generated at their resident public school through the school funding formula. Students in families whose household income is up to 1.5 times the threshold for free or reduced price lunch will be eligible to receive 60 percent of the amount they would have generated through the formula. Students in families whose household income is between of 1.5 times to 2 times the threshold will be eligible to receive 30 percent of what would have been generated through the formula.

The education savings account money could be used for tutoring, virtual school, higher education courses and private schools, Nelson said. 

“There is not a private school in every community,” Nelson said. “But there are alternative options to be found in every community.”

The president of a non-profit Oklahoma City school for impoverished and homeless children applauded the legislation.

Susan Agel, president of Positive Tomorrows, said the legislation could provide some funding for her students. Positive Tomorrows serves children who are homeless or in really difficult living situations.

“The Oklahoma City public school district estimates that there are about 2,000 homeless children in that school district,” Agel said. “There are a number of them that are really living in some difficult situations. Those are the children that we can do the most for. So far this year, we’ve turned away about 50 kids. We’ve done this because we have a lack of space in our building and because of staffing considerations.

“Every child that we take relieves some pressure on the burdened public school system who has to be all things to all children. We can take children who need some special care and we can take care of those kids and in the end we can save everybody a lot of money.”

Dr. Cris Carter, the superintendent of Oklahoma City Catholic Schools, said the Catholic Church has historically been an option for immigrants and the poor.

“We believe we have much to offer families who desire not only strong academics, but also a community rooted in a message of love and hope,” Carter said. “Representative Nelson’s previous legislation for special needs students has already begun to bear fruit. I have witnessed its impact most significantly at Good Shepherd Catholic School at Mercy, our school for children with autism.”

Lauren Marshall, member of the National Board on Public School Options and Tulsa resident, said parents need options.

“There are not enough school options right now for parents,” Marshall said. “This legislation will expand those options and we are grateful for Representative Nelson’s work on behalf of parents.”

Pam Newby, executive director of Special Care, also spoke in support of the legislation. 

“This bill is incredibly important to our families,” Newby said. “Most of our families are single parents with children who have respiratory issues, or learning disabilities, or autism. They desperately need an education plan that is not one-size-fits-all. Education should not be one-size-fits-all.”

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.

Obama sues to stop parents from using LA school choice law

Baton Rouge, La. – The American Federation for Children, the nation's voice for educational choice and its state affiliate, the Louisiana Federation for Children, last week strongly condemned President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder for seeking to limit educational options for the children of Louisiana. A motion filed by the U.S. Dept. of Justice seeks to prevent the state of Louisiana from offering school vouchers to children in school districts with existing desegregation orders for the 2014-15 school year unless the state receives authorization from the federal court overseeing the desegregation case.

Kevin P. Chavous

“President Obama's assault on educational options is unprecedented and directly impacts low-income families who have the right to high-quality educational options," said Kevin P. Chavous, executive counsel to the American Federation for Children. "We remain committed to fighting for children and ensuring those trapped in failing schools are not left behind."

(Read Chavous' Blog post "Obama to Louisiana Children: ‘You must remain separate and not equal’")

The Louisiana Scholarship Program awarded scholarships to 8,000 students for the 2013-14 school year after receiving nearly 12,000 applications from parents across the state who demand better choices for their children. In just one year, the Louisiana Scholarship Program showed a 60 percent growth, highlighting the popularity of this program that offers scholarships to students trapped in failing schools. To qualify, students must either be enrolled in a school ranked C, D or F or be entering kindergarten for the first time; they must also meet strict income guidelines.

Across the state, 128 schools in 32 parishes are participating in the Louisiana Scholarship Program, which was expanded statewide in 2012. Prior to the expansion, the program served children in New Orleans since its creation in 2008.

##

Kevin P. Chavous is a noted attorney, author, and national school reform leader. A former member of the Council of the District of Columbia and a former chairman of D.C.’s Education Committee, Chavous was responsible for enacting numerous education reforms in D.C. Chavous also presides as board chair for Democrats for Education Reform and is a former chair of the Black Alliance for Educational Options.

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. 

Lawmakers, Parents Express Disappointment “Parent Empowerment Act” Will Not Advance in 2013

OKLAHOMA CITY – Lawmakers and parents who supported a measure that would have allowed parents to “trigger” major changes in their local underperforming schools are disappointed the bill did not receive more support in the House of Representatives. The measure will be laid over until the 2014 legislative session.

Senate Bill 1001, by state Senators David Holt and Jabar Shumate and state Rep. Jason Nelson, would have allowed a majority of parents in an underperforming school to sign a petition that would transition the school to a charter school or terminate the administrators. 

“It’s obvious that we have a lot more work to do, but the momentum is on our side,” said Nelson, R-Oklahoma City. “There is a growing coalition of parents and policymakers who are determined to ensure that the voices of our students and their parents are heard, so that is very encouraging. Parents want choice for their children. The parents are on the front lines; they know whether their local school district is failing their children or not. 

“Blaming parents, as was done by an education organization recently, is not constructive – it’s wrongheaded. It’s ironic that opponents of the bill complained the law would create an adversarial relationship between parents and educators when a statement by a teacher organization pointed the finger at parents by saying ‘Letting parents have more control over the schools when they don't have control at home is not the answer.’ 

“It’s important to remember that the bill only applies to ‘D’ and ‘F’ school sites. That negative and condescending attitude toward parents will create more division than this or any other legislative initiative at the Capitol, and I think it speaks to the need for programs like Senate Bill 1001.”

Under the measure, the option to terminate administrators would only have been available in Oklahoma or Tulsa counties. An underperforming school would be defined as a school that has received a ‘D’ or an ‘F’ for at least the last two years under Oklahoma’s new grading system, or a ‘D’ or an ‘F’ for two of the last three years, as long as the most recent grade was a ‘D’ or an ‘F’. The bill provided that if the parents were to choose the charter school option, the charter school would first serve all students in the existing attendance boundaries of the school.

The measure was based on a concept that has been enacted in at least seven other states. 

“Opposition to this bill has little to do with the merits of the policy, because anyone would tell you that a failing school could use the parent involvement and regulatory flexibility this bill facilitates,” said Sen. Holt, R-Oklahoma City. “Opposition to this bill has everything to do with power – power that some apparently don’t want to share with parents. The title of this bill is the ‘Parent Empowerment Act,’ and I guess there’s nothing that scares some people more.”

Holt said the goal of chartering an underperforming school under the Parent Empowerment Act would be to provide the flexibility needed to improve student performance at the school in a manner led jointly by motivated parents and school district leaders. The process of creating a charter school outlined in the Parent Empowerment Act is designed to create a collaborative relationship between the parents and the school district, rather than an adversarial one.

“It is unfortunate for parents and children across the state that we

have not found consensus on Senate Bill 1001,” said Shumate, D-Tulsa. “I am committed to working with other members of the legislature in the future to bring real empowerment to our parents.  I still believe that people support that which they help create; therefore, I hope that educators in the future will demonstrate better how to plan with and not for the parents and children they serve.”

Tulsa resident and parent Lauren Marshall made the decision to homeschool her children rather than allow them to attend the local middle school.

“I was fortunate enough to be able to quit my job and have been able to dedicate the past five years to ensure my boys had a quality education,” said Marshall. “But very few parents – especially where I live – can afford to quit their jobs in order to be at home with their kids. What about Gaven and Reagan and Evan – real kids in my neighborhood that my own children play with? They deserve better than a ‘D’ or ‘F-rated’ school.”

Nelson, who filed a similar measure two years ago that did not even receive a hearing, said he is encouraged by the progress the bill has made, but that supporters need to put more effort into educating other lawmakers and other parents on the issue.

“We’re trying to make real changes for our communities of Tulsa by giving the parents the power to save their children in places where the schools have failed them,” said Pastor Joyce A. Cooper of World Won for Christ in Tulsa. “We need to keep on standing up for our kids and giving our families the power to make the changes they need. Our children are stuck in these schools with no options, and so it is a shame that this bill is not going to be heard. All we can do is press on for real power for our parents and communities.”


Holt also believes the bill will become law in the near future as long as lawmakers remember who the bill is designed to protect.

“Unfortunately, real parents have no voice in the Capitol, especially parents in the kinds of communities where this bill would do the most good,” said Holt. “That’s why we as legislators have to speak for them. Our job is not to protect failure. Our job is to empower our parents to make positive change, because parents are who we represent, and improvement is what we should demand. I hope that when this bill returns in the future, we’ll remember that.”

Last month, SB 1001 was approved in the Senate by a vote of 30-12. It can be considered in the House of Representatives in 2014.

Senate approves “Parent Empowerment Act”

OKLAHOMA CAPITOL -- The full Senate has given its approval to the “Parent Empowerment Act.” Senate Bill 1001, authored by Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, and Sen. Jabar Shumate, D-Tulsa, would enable parents to petition to make dramatic changes in their child’s underperforming school. The bill was approved 30 to 12 on Wednesday. Holt said the bill was based on a “parent trigger” concept that has been enacted in at least seven other states.

Under the provisions of the bill, if a majority of parents in an underperforming school sign a petition, they may transition the school to a charter school or terminate the administrators. The option to terminate administrators is only available in Oklahoma or Tulsa counties. An underperforming school is defined as a school that has received a ‘D’ or an ‘F’ for at least the last two years under Oklahoma’s new grading system, or a ‘D’ or an ‘F’ for two of the last three years, as long as the most recent grade was a ‘D’ or an ‘F’. If the parents choose the charter school option, the charter school will first serve all students in the existing attendance boundaries of the school.

“If there is an underperforming school where the parents want to organize and affect positive change, I want us to empower that,” Holt said. “I don’t want to make them wait another year to have that opportunity. Our children can’t wait. The Parent Empowerment Act is an important new tool for parents and students, and I commend the Senate for taking this important step forward in its passage.”

Holt said the goal of chartering an underperforming school under the Parent Empowerment Act would be to provide the flexibility needed to improve student performance at the school in a manner led jointly by motivated parents and school district leaders. The process of creating a charter school outlined in the Parent Empowerment Act is designed to create a collaborative relationship between the parents and the school district, rather than an adversarial one.

“I have consistently been inspired by the parents in my district who have fought for a better education for their kids,” said Shumate. “Oftentimes, this has led them to stand up for more choices and more tools, and I have stood with them. The Parent Empowerment Act gives the parents in my district a new tool, and that’s a good thing for our kids.”

SB 1001 now moves to the House of Representatives, where Rep. Jason Nelson is the primary House author.

Senate Education Committee Passes “Parent Empowerment Act” Feb. 27, 2013

Education film "Won't Back Down" in theaters Sept. 28 Sep. 20, 2012

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.

AFP-OK Director Stuart Jolly Resigns, Takes New Position

Oklahoma City, OK – Americans for Prosperity today announced that Stuart Jolly, state director of the organization’s Oklahoma chapter, is resigning at the end of the month to become Executive Political Director of TeamCFA which focuses on the areas of free-market economics, school choice and charter school issues. Stuart’s responsibilities are now nationwide, with special focus on three regions surrounding North Carolina, Arizona, and Indiana.

Stuart has served as state director of Americans for Prosperity for over six years.

Americans for Prosperity is actively looking for candidates to fill the Oklahoma State Director position. You can see more details and apply by clicking here.

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)

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." 

State Aid Allocation Increased to School Districts

The State Department of Education announced today that some state aid money previously held back to cover charter school enrollment is now being released to school districts. 

Some public school officials have engaged in unjustified, shrill criticism of Superintendent Janet Barresi over the amount of state aid money held back by the State Department of Education. They have largely failed to acknowledge that recent financial decisions are reasonable and responsible under current circumstances.

Last month the State Department of Education was required to set aside enough money to cover potential enrollment in charter schools, including some charter schools that were still in the application phase. At the time the initial allocations for school districts were required to be calculated the charter school enrollment numbers were not known. 

The Department of Education sent an email today notifying school districts of the amended initial aid allocation.

“As indicated this summer, now that August enrollment counts have been completed for public charter schools, the State Department of Education has adjusted initial state aid allocations and will be allocating an additional $9 million to all Oklahoma public school districts. Several public charter schools had lower enrollment numbers than initially anticipated, and several of the schools that applied for new charters this year will not open this semester.”

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?