By Constitution Staff

A lawsuit that Jenks Public Schools and Union Pubic Schools in Tulsa County filed against the parents of special-needs children is frivolous, cruel and misguided, said state Rep. Jason Nelson (R-Oklahoma City). "This lawsuit is vindictive and extremely out of line," said Nelson,. "It essentially tells parents: "Beware, school administrators will sue you if you dare seek a better education for your special-needs child.' Seeing such a reckless lawsuit filed at the behest of two superintendents whose salaries total nearly half a million public dollars a year should send cold chills down the spine of every parent in the state."

Named as defendants by the schools in the district court lawsuit are parents who obtained scholarships for their special-needs children through a new law. The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act was created by House Bill 3393 during the 2010 legislative session. Under the new law, authored by Rep. Nelson and state Sen. Patrick Anderson (R-Enid), children with disabilities who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) qualify for a scholarship to attend any private school that meets the accreditation requirements of the State Board of Education. The law went into effect August 27 of last year. The scholarships come from the money already designated for the education of those children. It just gives the parent a choice as to where that money can be best used for the benefit of their child.

Other states with similar laws include Florida, Georgia, Utah, Ohio and Arizona. The Florida program has been in place since 1999 and now serves approximately 20,000 students with special needs.

Last October, the school boards at Broken Arrow and Jenks voted to ignore the law. Bixby, Union, Liberty and Owasso schools later followed suit and also refused. On January 19 of this year, State Superintendent Janet Barresi issued a statement in conjunction with a letter sent by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to the superintendents of the defiant school districts, instructing them to comply with the law.

Although school officials claimed the scholarships would somehow create a financial hardship, the actual scholarship amounts will always be less than what the district receives from the state. Therefore, if the program would financially harm the schools, it could only mean they are spending less on the students than the state provides in aid.

Most of the schools violating the law are represented by the Rosenstein Fist Ringold law firm, which has been involved in similar failed legal strategies. The firm previously represented schools unsuccessfully suing the state over a charter school law.

Some of the schools claim that the law allows for the use of public money for "sectarian purposes" because nearly all of the private schools approved for scholarships are religious schools. They maintain that the Legislature cannot fund private education. The legislation has been heralded as a first step toward a wider school voucher system which could allow opportunities for other students. Tulsa Union School Superintendent Dr. Cathy Burden admitted that is the real issue behind their actions. Burden said she considers House Bill 3393 to be a first step toward a universal voucher system, which she charged was "a scheme to undermine public education in this country." Today 53 students are receiving scholarships valued at a combined total of $197,345. "Instead of being sued, these parents should be lauded for being engaged in the education of their children. For years, they suffered as these same public schools failed to provide a quality education to their special-needs child. And now these schools are putting their interests ahead of the interests of the child," said Nelson. "The parents did not create the program and are clearly not responsible for enforcing or administering the program. The parents simply obtained a scholarship for their special-needs child as provided for in state law," Nelson said. "These parents now find themselves in a position where their local districts are trying to punish them in court for simply following state law."

Nelson said the basic premise of the districts' lawsuit is troubling. "There is no difference between this lawsuit and a school district choosing to sue parents who transfer their child to another school district under the state's open transfer law. In both cases parents make the choice to transfer their child to a different school pursuant to state law and in each case a portion of the money follows that student to the new school," Nelson said.

The Jenks and Union school boards voted in early August to pursue "any action the superintendent deemed necessary with regard to legal action against appropriate persons and entities." Many did not understand that what "appropriate persons" actually meant was sue the parents. "Had the public known that was the districts' intention, there would likely have been the justifiable outrage there is today over this misguided action," Nelson said.

"For years we heard that schools did not have enough funding to take care of special-needs children and that it hurt the education of other pupils. Now we have a solution for helping these students -- and reducing the burden on the schools. From this lawsuit it appears these superintendents care more about the money than they do about the child," Nelson concluded.

House Bill 3393 was one of the ten bills included on the 2010 Oklahoma Conservative Index rating state legislators, with a vote for the bill being the conservative vote. To find how your legislator voted, see the 2010 Oklahoma Conservative Index at our website.