Latest news with #NationalSchoolChoiceWeek
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Supreme Court can remove barriers to educational freedom
'I will always protect Oklahoma's parents and their right to choose what is best for their child, especially when it comes to their education.' This proud statement adorned Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond's Facebook page during National School Choice Week this year. Indeed, Drummond has put action behind these words, notably by supporting the right of parents to be informed by school officials if their children are struggling with their biological sex. Oklahoma also has one of the strongest parental rights laws in the country — a law that Drummond was elected to uphold. However, the attorney general has fallen short of his promise in one major case that is set for oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court today — a case with huge ramifications for school choice in all states. In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, Drummond suppressed educational freedom by suing to cancel the state's charter school board agreement with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. As a result of this lawsuit — and the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision against the charter school board — parental rights are being limited when it comes to educational choices for their children. This comes at a time when laws supporting parental rights are on a major upswing at the state and federal level. There are currently 21 states with parental rights laws on the books. And in January, Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), introduced the Families' Rights and Responsibilities Act to protect parents' right to direct the upbringing, education and health care of their children from infringement by the federal government. Many of our nation's leaders recognize the importance of safeguarding the authority of parents as the primary decision-makers when it comes to how their children are raised — including where they are educated. Although Oklahoma has strong protections for parental rights, it also has a law on the books that prohibits state funding for 'sectarian purposes.' Drummond's predecessor, John O'Connor, rightly advised the state charter school board that the law was unconstitutional, in light of Supreme Court precedent that allows public funds to go to religious institutions — including a Supreme Court decision that tackled the very issue at the heart of Oklahoma's law: Blaine amendments. In the 1870s, Rep. James Blaine (R-Maine) launched a nearly successful attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep states from aiding so-called 'sectarian' schools — really just a thinly veiled and bigoted attempt to keep states from funding Catholic schools. Although the amendment fortunately failed, other states took the lead and added Blaine amendments to their state constitutions — Montana being one, Oklahoma another. Montana's application of its Blaine amendment to prohibit parents from using school choice funds to send their children to religious schools was ruled unconstitutional in 2020 — a ruling that informed the former Oklahoma attorney general's opinion that the charter school board was well within its rights to contract with St. Isidore. Aside from anti-Catholic bias, the Supreme Court has long stood for the ability of parents to make educational decisions for their kids. In the 1920s, the court struck down a Nebraska law that prohibited schools from teaching German even in schools where parents wanted it (motivated by anti-German sentiments after World War I). The court rightly recognized that law interfered with the interest of parents choosing what education they want for their children — and here we are, more than 100 years later, asking the same question. Alliance Defending Freedom, where I serve as senior counsel and the director of the Center for Public Policy, will appear on behalf of the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board at the Supreme Court on April 30. We will argue these anti-educational-freedom laws should be left in the history books, along with the others against which the court has ruled. Oklahoma and other states like it have many pro-family qualities, but in order for them to be consistently pro-family, the court should remove the barriers to parental choice in education. Matt Sharp is senior counsel and director for the Center for Public Policy with Alliance Defending Freedom. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court can remove barriers to educational freedom
'I will always protect Oklahoma's parents and their right to choose what is best for their child, especially when it comes to their education.' This proud statement adorned Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond's Facebook page during National School Choice Week this year. Indeed, Drummond has put action behind these words, notably by supporting the right of parents to be informed by school officials if their children are struggling with their biological sex. Oklahoma also has one of the strongest parental rights laws in the country — a law that Drummond was elected to uphold. However, the attorney general has fallen short of his promise in one major case that is set for oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court today — a case with huge ramifications for school choice in all states. In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, Drummond suppressed educational freedom by suing to cancel the state's charter school board agreement with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. As a result of this lawsuit — and the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision against the charter school board — parental rights are being limited when it comes to educational choices for their children. This comes at a time when laws supporting parental rights are on a major upswing at the state and federal level. There are currently 21 states with parental rights laws on the books. And in January, Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), introduced the Families' Rights and Responsibilities Act to protect parents' right to direct the upbringing, education and health care of their children from infringement by the federal government. Many of our nation's leaders recognize the importance of safeguarding the authority of parents as the primary decision-makers when it comes to how their children are raised — including where they are educated. Although Oklahoma has strong protections for parental rights, it also has a law on the books that prohibits state funding for 'sectarian purposes.' Drummond's predecessor, John O'Connor, rightly advised the state charter school board that the law was unconstitutional, in light of Supreme Court precedent that allows public funds to go to religious institutions — including a Supreme Court decision that tackled the very issue at the heart of Oklahoma's law: Blaine amendments. In the 1870s, Rep. James Blaine (R-Maine) launched a nearly successful attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep states from aiding so-called 'sectarian' schools — really just a thinly veiled and bigoted attempt to keep states from funding Catholic schools. Although the amendment fortunately failed, other states took the lead and added Blaine amendments to their state constitutions — Montana being one, Oklahoma another. Montana's application of its Blaine amendment to prohibit parents from using school choice funds to send their children to religious schools was ruled unconstitutional in 2020 — a ruling that informed the former Oklahoma attorney general's opinion that the charter school board was well within its rights to contract with St. Isidore. Aside from anti-Catholic bias, the Supreme Court has long stood for the ability of parents to make educational decisions for their kids. In the 1920s, the court struck down a Nebraska law that prohibited schools from teaching German even in schools where parents wanted it (motivated by anti-German sentiments after World War I). The court rightly recognized that law interfered with the interest of parents choosing what education they want for their children — and here we are, more than 100 years later, asking the same question. Alliance Defending Freedom, where I serve as senior counsel and the director of the Center for Public Policy, will appear on behalf of the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board at the Supreme Court on April 30. We will argue these anti-educational-freedom laws should be left in the history books, along with the others against which the court has ruled. Oklahoma and other states like it have many pro-family qualities, but in order for them to be consistently pro-family, the court should remove the barriers to parental choice in education.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Proposal to expand Nebraska college savings accounts to cover private K-12 tuition advances
Lauren Gage, spokesperson for the private school scholarship granting organization Opportunity Scholarships of Nebraska, joins Nebraska private school students and lawmakers in honor of National School Choice Week in 2025. Jan. 28, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska's educational savings accounts designed to help pay for public or private college expenses could expand to cover private K-12 tuition, in line with federal law, beginning in 2029. The proposed change from State Sen. Tony Sorrentino of the Elkhorn area was amended 32-11 Tuesday evening into Legislative Bill 647 after multiple hours of debate. At least 42 states already allow such savings accounts to cover tuition at K-12 private schools, which was first allowed in 2018 after passage of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for up to $10,000 per beneficiary per year. A 529 savings plan — in Nebraska, NEST 529 — offers tax breaks to encourage families or students to donate and allow the savings to grow tax-free. Multiple attempts to expand the accounts in Nebraska have stalled in recent years. State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area, who led LB 647 as chair of the Legislature's Revenue Committee, said he didn't have the 'foreknowledge' to use NEST 529 accounts for his children. But he 'very gladly' started them for his grandchildren and suggested others do so. 'It's a great way to save for college education, and with the implementation of this bill … those funds could also be used for primary education,' von Gillern said. Von Gillern said that of the other states without expanded accounts — California, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and New York — it is 'probably not a club that you would imagine Nebraska being in.' 'It sort of reminds me in grade school when they showed you pictures of five cats and a dog and said, 'Which one doesn't belong there?'' Sorrentino told von Gillern during the debate. State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln led opposition to Sorrentino's measure, which he noted did not directly send public dollars to private schools. However, he and State Sen. Dunix Guereca of Omaha said it was in the same vein as the defeat of a private school voucher system last fall at the ballot box. 'We are indirectly subsidizing the tax deductions for money that goes to tuition for private K-12 education,' Dungan said of Sorrentino's proposal, originally LB 131. Guereca, who, along with Dungan, has been on the frontlines advocating against recent school choice proposals, said the November vote was about the 'concept' of using public dollars for private schools. He said the tax breaks allowed under Sorrentino's expanded measure could instead be used for a 'plethora of other ideas,' particularly with the state's projected budget shortfall. 'I'm afraid that if we do pass this measure then it's a slippery slope to see more and more school privatization,' Guereca said. Dungan raised concern that Sorrentino's measure would not allow savings to cover K-12 public school expenses, such as for extracurriculars. Sorrentino said he was 'fine' with including public schools but that doing so is not federally allowed. The measure's start date was pushed back to 2029 in part to push it beyond the state's budget woes, not just for the next two fiscal years, at nearly $400 million in the hole with even the cuts proposed in the Appropriations Committee budget, but also following two years to mid-2028. The state would be about $700 million short of the mark future lawmakers would need to hit, based on current projections. Sorrentino's measure could lead to new tax breaks of about $3-4 million each year, but he cautioned that the estimate is based on assumptions of 12,000 to 15,000 people opening new accounts and meeting the maximum $10,000 contributions to those accounts. Of 49 state senators, he said each could come up with a different estimate. He said it could be as much as $5 million or as little as $500,000. He said he thought the number was likely closer to $3 million. State Sen. Bob Andersen of north-central Sarpy County said Sorrentino's measures could alleviate public school overcrowding, possibly leading to overall cost savings to the state. State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln differed from her progressive colleagues and voted for the bill, as did State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, a more moderate Democrat. State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, a Republican who has rebuffed past school choice proposals, voted against adding Sorrentino's measure to LB 647. The other votes largely followed party lines. Conrad said Sorrentino's measure was 'intellectually and practically and policy-based distinguishable from some of the prior measures that we have looked at.' Said Conrad: 'This measure doesn't seem to really raise the exact kind of concerns about a dilution or diminution of public funds into private schools.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Let's expand K-12 education freedom to children in every state
My perspective as a mom of two school-aged kids informs nearly everything I do as a United States senator, and it is through my own life and conversations with other parents that I came to understand the importance of achieving universal educational choice as an option for every student in America. That is why, during this year's National School Choice Week, I once again proudly joined as a co-sponsor of the Educational Choice for Children Act, introduced by Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). This bill would empower millions of parents in Alabama and across the country to access high-quality education that suits their child's unique needs, regardless of income or zip code. When it comes to education, one size does not fit all. Every family should be empowered to make the best possible choice for their child's education. For many, that may be their traditional local public school; for others, it might be a traditional public school elsewhere; it could be a public charter or magnet school; it may be a private school or religious school; it could be a trade school; it could be home schooling; or it could be a virtual academy or hybrid solution. The Educational Choice for Children Act would incentivize charitable donations to fund scholarships for families to use for K-12 education. Those scholarships would fund school tuition, supplemental educational services for children with special needs, tutoring, homeschool instruction and myriad of other expenses. As many as 2 million students across the U.S. would benefit from these scholarships, whether they live in the 32 states that have private school-choice laws or the 18 states that do not. Although the Educational Choice for Children Act would provide funding for students to attend the schools best equipped to serve their needs, it would not impose new costs or mandates from Washington on states, schools or families. Rather than being administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the Educational Choice for Children Act would be a tax-incentive run through the Treasury Department to generate greater private financial support for students from kindergarten to 12th grade. It is a tried-and-true model already in place in 21 states, including the great state of Alabama. In fact, my home state is quickly becoming a national leader in expanding K-12 education freedom and allowing families the opportunity to choose the best path for their children. More than a decade ago, Alabama adopted its Education Scholarship Program, a state-level tax credit that generates privately funded scholarships for students from low-income and working-class families, offering those families more flexibility in selecting a school for their kids. Just last year, we became one of 12 states to enact universal school choice with the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students' Education Act, providing education savings accounts to all families with school-age children. Expanding parental choice in education has always been good policy, and the need to do so has only grown over the past few years. The National Assessment of Educational Progress 2024 shows that American students have not recovered from COVID-era learning loss brought on by mass school closures during the pandemic. Existing data demonstrate that fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores remain below 2019 levels, despite the federal government adding nearly $200 billion above baseline K-12 education spending during COVID. It all goes to show that throwing money at this problem does not provide a coherent solution. We must move past an approach of carefree spending without an eye on results. Instead, our government should encourage greater parental control over children's education, empowering families to access the academic setting that best meets their kids' needs and has the greatest potential to improve opportunities. For millions of American families, the Educational Choice for Children Act would accomplish just that. When more parents from low-income to middle-class households have the freedom to choose their children's schools — the way higher-income parents can — they have the ability to shop around, finding the setting that checks all the boxes they see fit. Indeed, the numbers show this competitive effect from school choice increases accountability in both private and public education, leading to higher test scores, safer schools and more satisfied parents. According to educational freedom advocacy group EdChoice, of the 188 empirical studies conducted on the efficacy of school-choice policies over the past three decades, 163 show positive results, while only 11 suggest negative outcomes. Passing the Educational Choice for Children Act would allow parents and children across the U.S. to take advantage of opportunities typically available only to higher-income families, fulfilling President Trump's promise of universal school choice by empowering parents and students. This would be a huge victory for hardworking families. It would build on the success of state-level programs without dictating education policy from on high in Washington. And it would create a lasting legacy of quality education for generations of American children. Katie Britt serves as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, deputy majority whip, and vice chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
06-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Let's expand K-12 education freedom to children in every state
My perspective as a mom of two school-aged kids informs nearly everything I do as a United States senator, and it is through my own life and conversations with other parents that I came to understand the importance of achieving universal educational choice as an option for every student in America. That is why, during this year's National School Choice Week, I once again proudly joined as a co-sponsor of the Educational Choice for Children Act, introduced by Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). This bill would empower millions of parents in Alabama and across the country to access high-quality education that suits their child's unique needs, regardless of income or zip code. When it comes to education, one size does not fit all. Every family should be empowered to make the best possible choice for their child's education. For many, that may be their traditional local public school; for others, it might be a traditional public school elsewhere; it could be a public charter or magnet school; it may be a private school or religious school; it could be a trade school; it could be home schooling; or it could be a virtual academy or hybrid solution. The Educational Choice for Children Act would incentivize charitable donations to fund scholarships for families to use for K-12 education. Those scholarships would fund school tuition, supplemental educational services for children with special needs, tutoring, homeschool instruction and myriad of other expenses. As many as 2 million students across the U.S. would benefit from these scholarships, whether they live in the 32 states that have private school-choice laws or the 18 states that do not. Although the Educational Choice for Children Act would provide funding for students to attend the schools best equipped to serve their needs, it would not impose new costs or mandates from Washington on states, schools or families. Rather than being administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the Educational Choice for Children Act would be a tax-incentive run through the Treasury Department to generate greater private financial support for students from kindergarten to 12th grade. It is a tried-and-true model already in place in 21 states, including the great state of Alabama. In fact, my home state is quickly becoming a national leader in expanding K-12 education freedom and allowing families the opportunity to choose the best path for their children. More than a decade ago, Alabama adopted its Education Scholarship Program, a state-level tax credit that generates privately funded scholarships for students from low-income and working-class families, offering those families more flexibility in selecting a school for their kids. Just last year, we became one of 12 states to enact universal school choice with the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students' Education Act, providing education savings accounts to all families with school-age children. Expanding parental choice in education has always been good policy, and the need to do so has only grown over the past few years. The National Assessment of Educational Progress 2024 shows that American students have not recovered from COVID-era learning loss brought on by mass school closures during the pandemic. Existing data demonstrate that fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores remain below 2019 levels, despite the federal government adding nearly $200 billion above baseline K-12 education spending during COVID. It all goes to show that throwing money at this problem does not provide a coherent solution. We must move past an approach of carefree spending without an eye on results. Instead, our government should encourage greater parental control over children's education, empowering families to access the academic setting that best meets their kids' needs and has the greatest potential to improve opportunities. For millions of American families, the Educational Choice for Children Act would accomplish just that. When more parents from low-income to middle-class households have the freedom to choose their children's schools — the way higher-income parents can — they have the ability to shop around, finding the setting that checks all the boxes they see fit. Indeed, the numbers show this competitive effect from school choice increases accountability in both private and public education, leading to higher test scores, safer schools and more satisfied parents. According to educational freedom advocacy group EdChoice, of the 188 empirical studies conducted on the efficacy of school-choice policies over the past three decades, 163 show positive results, while only 11 suggest negative outcomes. Passing the Educational Choice for Children Act would allow parents and children across the U.S. to take advantage of opportunities typically available only to higher-income families, fulfilling President Trump's promise of universal school choice by empowering parents and students. This would be a huge victory for hardworking families. It would build on the success of state-level programs without dictating education policy from on high in Washington. And it would create a lasting legacy of quality education for generations of American children.
