Oklahoma churches against kids

Oklahoma’s schools continue to perform poorly. But instead of standing up for children, some pastors and pastrixes are only interested in profits for their government friends.

Secularization and schooling

"Education policy may well be the primary contributor to the secularization of modern societies," Greg Forster writes. "Universal school choice—letting parents use their public education dollars at the school of their choice—would allow all schools (including public schools) to educate the whole person for a whole life."

School choice as prophetic justice

Greg Forster marvels that some Oklahoma pastors defend a school monopoly that often destroys children’s lives in order to line the pockets of greedy, politically connected special interests.

Anti-Christian discrimination reaches Oklahoma

Credit: The Weekly Standard

[Guest post by Jonathan Small]

It’s no secret government officials often target traditional Christians for harassment, but Oklahomans often view that as a problem that happens in other states, not here. Sadly, that’s not true.

In 2010, lawmakers passed and the governor signed into law the Lindsey Nicole Henry (LNH) Scholarships for Students with Disabilities program. It provides state scholarships for certain students—those with special needs like autism, or foster children—to attend private schools.

A few things are required for schools to participate. The LNH law requires that participating private schools comply with the antidiscrimination provisions of a section of federal law that bars discrimination “on the ground of race, color, or national origin.”

Those are the only three categories listed. Yet, under the leadership of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Joy Hofmeister, the OSDE drafted new regulations that added “religion” and “sexual orientation” to that list.

As a result, private Christian schools are now being blackballed from serving LNH students.

When Altus Christian Academy and Christian Heritage Academy applied to serve LNH students, they were denied approval by the State Board of Education at the group’s October meeting.

Oklahoma State Board of Education member Kurt Bollenbach complained one of the schools required staff to be “mature Christian teachers,” which he declared was “discriminating against other religions or nonreligions.”

Bollenbach and Brad Clark, who serves as Hofmeister’s top attorney, also stressed the two schools' policies on sexual orientation.

Put another way, if they want to serve LNH students, Christian schools must be prepared to hire strident atheists and embrace all aspects of the LGBT agenda.

Bollenbach even declared Christian schools have the right to set hiring policies only “until they ask for state dollars.” But that is not true, because the LNH program does not force parents to attend any specific private schools. Instead, students attend by choice.

That’s one reason the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the law in 2016, saying, “When the parents and not the government are the ones determining which private school offers the best learning environment for their child, the circuit between government and religion is broken.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld school-choice programs that allow students to attend private religious schools.

It’s notable that the LNH program operated for nine years without any problem before the OSDE concocted these new restrictions on schools’ policies regarding religion and sexual orientation.

The OSDE regulations are, in effect, a unilateral rewriting of Oklahoma law done outside the legislative process. Fortunately, the illegality of that action is apparent to all, and the agency will likely face lawsuits if it does not reverse course.

Even so, this incident highlights a sad fact: Citizens in conservative Oklahoma must be just as vigilant in monitoring their government’s actions as their blue-state counterparts.

Bigots lose, school choice wins, today at Supreme Court

"Religious bigotry is one reason we have 'public schools' in the United States," Trent England writes. "Government-run schools with compulsory attendance were developed as a tool to wipe out minority religious views. That conflict continues, and today the Supreme Court sided with religious minorities in a dispute that arose in Montana but that also helps protect a program in Oklahoma."

"Espinoza buttresses the already favorable educational choice environment in Oklahoma," the Institute for Justice points out.

In Oliver v. Hofmeister, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a publicly funded scholarship program for students with disabilities under the state’s Blaine Amendment because the program was neutral toward religion and the aid was for the child. Espinoza reinforces that Oklahoma is free to enact any type of generally available educational choice program its policymakers believe will best serve the state’s students.

U.S. Supreme Court upholds tax-credit scholarship program

Ray Carter has the story.

Crossover Prep featured at Governor's Prayer Breakfast

School choice is transforming lives in north Tulsa. And Crossover Prep founder Philip Abode acknowledges frankly, "Our school doesn’t exist without the tax-credit scholarships." 

Here's a video that was shown yesterday at the Governor's Prayer Breakfast.

Atheist group bullies Edmond school district

Will the district cave?

Blaine on trial

The good folks at the Center for Education Reform have a nice round-up here.

A bridge too far

"But even if the general appetite for [virtual charter school] regulation increases, closing Oklahoma’s enrollment loophole by creating a roster of homeschool and private school students may not be politically feasible," Caroline Halter reports.

“Our state is not one that wants to intrude on personal information of family members who are choosing not to be a part of public schools,” Hofmeister said.  

Even Sen. Sharp admitted he could not support such a law and survive reelection.

New survey asks pastors: Do schools influence faith formation?

Ray Carter has the story.

Liberals' real problem is that Christian schools exist at all

Tony Perkins explains.

Why do religious schools teach science better?

The superintendent in Bixby once scoffed that private-school choice programs are for “a parent who wants to use the Bible as your child’s biology text.” 

A public-education advocacy group in Bartlesville, responding to a bill to protect teachers from interference in helping students understand scientific theories, called it “anti-science” legislation which is “designed to discredit evolution and climate change” and which could even (gasp!) “open the door to creationism.” 

But as Greg Forster reminds us in an excellent new article, "we should be skeptical when a self-protective educational monopoly tries to scare us out of allowing alternatives."

Reagan: MAGA with vouchers, tax credits

"We can also encourage excellence by encouraging parental choice," President Ronald Reagan said during his commencement address at Seton Hall on May 21, 1983.

And that's exactly what we're trying to do through our programs of tuition tax credits and vouchers, allowing individual parents to choose the kinds of schools they know will be best for their children's needs. America rose to greatness through the free and vigorous competition of ideas. We can make American education great again by applying these same principles of intellectual freedom and innovation—for individual families, through the vouchers I mentioned and tuition tax credits, and for individual public school systems, through block grants that come without the red tape of government regulations from Washington attached.

And although I know that this idea is not too popular in some supposedly sophisticated circles, I can't help but believe that voluntary prayer and the spiritual values that have shaped our civilization and made us the good and caring society we are deserve a place again in our nation's classrooms.

Does a Justice Kavanaugh mean that Blaine Amendments are history?

"It is my hope that a court with Kavanaugh on the bench will finally excise Blaine Amendments from state constitutions," Mike McShane writes. "Their legacy of bigotry has lived long enough."

David Holt, school choice, and diversity

State Sen. David Holt (R-Oklahoma City) discusses charter school legislation at a meeting of the Oklahoma School Choice Coalition on September 3, 2015.

State Sen. David Holt has been elected mayor of Oklahoma City and will be sworn in on April 10. "I want to be part of creating a strategic vision for the future of public education in our city," he says. "And then I’m going to be working every day to incorporate the diversity of our city into decision-making."

Though he's an enthusiastic public-school booster, Holt has also been good on many school choice issues. He mainly supports some forms of public-school choice (charter schools and parent trigger, for example), though he also voted last year to expand Oklahoma's private-school voucher program and tax-credit scholarship program.

On the other hand, he was not at all helpful when it came to trying to provide education savings accounts (ESAs) to low-income students in some of our state's worst schools. During last year's legislative session, Mary Mélon, president of the Foundation for Oklahoma City Public Schools, sent an email to several public school supporters, including Sen. Holt, warning that an ESA bill which was being heard the next morning would have "dire consequences for OKCPS." (How's that for confidence in one's own product? Any sane person would flee if given the opportunity!)

Less than an hour later, Holt replied with the assurance that he planned to introduce two amendments in committee which would, shall we say, markedly dampen the bill's prospects.

Disappointingly, the bill's author had to pull the ESA bill when it became clear that, for a variety of reasons, he wasn't going to have the necessary votes for passage.

"In shelving a modest school choice bill because some Republicans capitulated to education establishment lobbyists, the Republican majority undermined their campaign vows to advance conservative policy and ignored the needs of some of Oklahoma's neediest children," The Oklahoman rightly noted. "Sadly, too many legislative Republicans preferred the 'absence of tension' with status-quo forces to aiding poor families and creating a better future for all Oklahomans."

One hopes that, as mayor, Holt's views will evolve and he'll come to see the importance of casting a strategic vision for the future of education—not just government-operated schools—in Oklahoma City. After all, he knows better than most that many young families will never even consider living in the Oklahoma City school district, at least not while the charter school waiting lists are so long. But give them, say, a $5,000-per-child voucher or ESA and suddenly the calculus changes considerably. As real estate professor Bart Danielsen and former Oklahoma City mayor Kirk Humphreys pointed out in The Oklahoman and in remarks at a meeting of the Oklahoma School Choice Coalition, educational choice policies can alter family-relocation patterns, revitalize cities, increase property values, and more.

Speaking of Kirk Humphreys, you're doubtless familiar with the cultural left's recent defenestration of Humphreys from the University of Oklahoma board of regents. Happily, however, despite the intolerance and discrimination shown by some citizens, Humphreys was able to retain his position on the board of the John Rex Charter Elementary School—even though Sen. Holt doesn't think the former mayor is fit to serve. Holt said:

I do not agree with Kirk Humphreys’ views on this matter and after making his views public, I don’t believe he can credibly serve in a public education leadership role.

Hmmm. The former mayor of Oklahoma City, "an evangelical Christian who simply articulated the view that has been traditionally embraced for 2,000 years by Christians of virtually all branches," cannot credibly serve on the board of a charter school? Really?

This understandably provoked some questions. Local pastor (and Humphreys' son-in-law) Jonathan Middlebrooks engaged Sen. Holt on Twitter:

• Your quote is being used by the group opposing Kirk Humphreys' position on the John Rex board. You say "do not agree with Kirk Humphreys’ views on this matter." Does this mean the views he clarified in his apology and press release?
• Do you agree that according to the group petitioning for his removal that “his fundamental beliefs disqualify him from public leadership”? Those beliefs being Christian beliefs?
• Do you believe that citizens with deeply held religious beliefs like Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or Christians cannot serve public offices or should be blocked from doing so due to those beliefs?
• Are Christians and other religious groups right to expect a Mayoral candidate to protect their freedoms alongside all other citizens? To say someone “cannot credibly serve in a public education role” due to his religious beliefs seems dangerous.
• As a citizen in OKC, a local pastor, and community leader I believe these are important questions that we deserve to have answered. I appreciate any response here or would love to meet in person.

Sen. Holt replied:

• My comment speaks for itself and I don’t see it having any relation to your follow-up questions. I am a Christian. All people are welcome in my OKC. You are welcome to send me an email if you’d like to visit further. Davidholt@gmail.com
• Also, I am not involved in this issue in any way. I responded to a question and stated my personal opinion, and I suppose people are free to quote me, but if you are passionate about this issue I would encourage you to lobby those involved in it. I am not.

Sen. Holt says he's "not involved in this issue in any way," but that's incorrect. He's a public official who said publicly that he doesn't believe Humphreys can credibly serve—and his words are being used by those who wanted to oust Humphreys. So, he's involved.

Sen. Holt says that “all people are welcome in my OKC.” That’s disingenuous to the point of being insulting. Humphreys is not saying—indeed, no reasonable person is saying—that those who practice homosexuality are not welcome in the city.

Moreover, Sen. Holt's comment does not “speak for itself.” On the contrary, his vaguely worded comment—regarding Humphreys’ views “on this matter”—veritably cries out for the sorts of astute, respectful follow-up questions which were asked and which deserve an answer.

John Rex is a successful charter school, and with any luck OKCPS will convert to a charter district early in Holt's tenure as mayor. But as the new mayor seeks "to incorporate the diversity of our city into decision-making," citizens need to know if that diversity includes Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Christians, and others who hold traditional religious views on sexual morality. Because if the mayor or other leaders evince an intolerance that deems certain citizens unfit to serve, that's a problem far more serious than any disagreement over education policy.

UPDATES:

• Regrettably, Mr. Holt has gone steadily downhill, declaring the city's first-ever LGBTQ "Pride Week."
• The executive committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently passed a resolution supporting the establishment of a federal commission "to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery." Holt is a member of that committee. A reporter has asked him repeatedly if he favors the proposal, but Holt won't answer.

For structural pluralism in education

"We need not pine for an era when a generic, superficial Protestantism was taken for granted by most Americans," writes Boston University professor emeritus Charles Glenn ("Can We Stop Fighting Over Schools?").

In the contemporary American scene, despite the cultural hegemony of an intolerant secularism, the social elements for constructing vigorous alternative institutions and communities are by no means lacking. Indeed, they have been stimulated by the collapse of the post-war “Judeo-Christian” cultural dominance. The challenge is to give principled policy support to this rich pluralism of convictions.

Here we could usefully look to the example of the Netherlands. In the nineteenth century, Dutch society was roiled by decades-long conflicts over schools. Protestants and Catholics vigorously resisted the efforts of liberal elites to impose a common set of beliefs through the schools operated by local government. The solution that brought a permanent “pacification” to these conflicts was the adoption of structural pluralism in education (and in other sectors of social and cultural life) that permitted educators to provide schooling based on a variety of worldviews and gave parents the right to choose among those schools without financial penalty. Today, about 70 percent of Dutch children attend schools that are not operated by government. Academic outcomes are strong, and education is not a focal point of political conflict. ...

Most other nations with advanced levels of universal schooling provide public support to faith-based schools with no evident harm to their social fabric and with considerably less conflict over schooling than occurs in the United States. Surely the time has come for a similar American “pacification,” through adoption of principled pluralism as the fundamental and equitable structure of our education system.

‘She knew homeschooling was right for her babies’

Great story over at Education Post about Latasha Fields.

Ending bigoted education laws

Pastor asks OKC school board to embrace tolerance

"All that we are asking," Pastor Sam Storms recently told the Oklahoma City school board, "all that Mr. Humphreys desires, is that he be granted the same right and freedom to embrace his views on human sexuality that is granted to the LGBTQ community."

He is more than willing to affirm their right to believe and live in accordance with their convictions concerning homosexuality. He simply is asking that he be shown the same dignity and granted the same constitutional freedom when it comes to his beliefs about what the Bible says concerning homosexual behavior.

I’m not asking that you agree with his or my moral convictions concerning homosexual practice but only that you extend to him the same respect and intellectual freedom that you so tenaciously protect on behalf of all others.

Were Mr. Humphreys to be removed from the Board of John Rex School it would tell me and others that anyone can serve on this Board except evangelical Christians. It tells me that every view is permissible and should be granted freedom of expression and protection from discrimination except the view embraced by orthodox, Bible-believing Christians.

Surely our emphasis on “inclusion” and “tolerance” and the importance of showing respect for all views should be extended to all persons, including Mr. Humphreys.