4/9/05
To all:
Most of the recipients of this email are aware that
policy changes have been introduced into the state budget that will have an
impact on students being educated under an “08” nonchartered, nonpublic
school classification relating to the use of the post secondary enrollment
options program.
I have received an unusually high number of phone calls
and emails on this subject in recent days. Therefore, the purpose of this
correspondence is to provide background information regarding 08 schools;
an overview of the PSEO program; and at least one suggested solution to the
legislative policy changes. I will try not to make this unbearably
long. I realize that there will be some who are already familiar with these
details. However, there will be others who may benefit from receiving the
information, perhaps for the first time.
I recognize that there are a variety of opinions on
these issues and wish to state clearly that I personally believe in each
parent’s God-given authority to direct the educational choices for their
children. I will try to be objective and factual. It is expressly not my
intent to cause any offense…
History of Ohio’s 08 regulations [OAC 3301-35-08]:
1953: Ohio’s Constitution was amended to establish the
State Board of Education.
1953: Ohio Revised Code 3301.07 was enacted to require
the SBE to “formulate and prescribe minimum standards to be applied to all
elementary and high schools in this state.”
1957: The SBE approved the first set of minimum
standards which specified that any “institution which does not meet these
standards shall not be considered to be a school” pursuant to the compulsory
attendance statute ORC 3321.
1970: The SBE revised the state minimum standards with
provisions that were Biblically objectionable to nontax supported Christian
schools.
The following information is provided in “Ohio’s
Trojan Horse,” written by Alan N. Grover (1977).
1974: Thirteen parents of children attending the
Tabernacle Christian School in Bradford, Ohio were criminally indicted and
convicted for “failure to send children to school.” The school had not
sought a state charter due to the fact that it had religious objections to
the state minimum standards. Without a state charter, the school was not
legally recognized as a school, thereby rendering the students truant.
[Ohio v. Whisner ]
1975: The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals
for Darke County, which affirmed their conviction.
December 8, 1975: “…10,000 Bible-believing Christians
rallied on the Statehouse lawn in protest of the lawsuit that threatened to
take children away from their parents because the parents had sent their
children to a church-operated Christian school not licensed (“chartered”) by
the state.” (p. ix)
“We must also note that the school was not chartered or
approved because the governing body of the school did not want state
approval. The defendants argued that the Minimum Standards violated their
religious convictions and unduly burdened the free exercise of their
religion.” (p. 5)
1976: The case was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court,
which overturned the judgments of the lower courts. [Ohio v. Whisner,
47 Ohio St. 2d 181 (1976)]
This is one of several legal battles that led to the
eventual development of a single regulation to govern non-chartered, non-tax
supported schools. It was solely designed around the free exercise clause of
the U.S. Constitution for church-based non-tax supported schools.
1983: 3301-35-08 was approved to provide the single
regulation governing non-chartered, non-tax supported schools. It was
solely intended to protect church-based schools (not seeking state approval
or state financial support) from state intrusion. Hence, this was the origin
of the term “08 schools.”
It is fairly clear from the language in 3301-35-08 that
it was not designed to be applied in practice to individual families.
3301-35-08 “A school, which is not chartered or seeking
a charter from the state board of education because of truly held religious
beliefs, shall annually certify in a report to the parents of its pupils…”
3301-35-08(A): “…school shall be open for instruction
with pupils in attendance…”
3301-35-08(B) describes a school day with a noon recess
3301-35-08(C) Parents are required to report their child’s school enrollment
or withdrawal, but the
individual in charge of the school may provide the report for the
parent.
3301-35-08(H) “Pupils attending a non-chartered, non-tax supported school
are not entitled to
pupil transportation…”
However, between 1983 and 1989 parents who sincerely
believed that God was leading them to directly provide for the education of
their own children had nothing in statute or regulation to protect them from
the state’s compulsory attendance laws. Some of these families identified
themselves as 08 schools to provide for their own legal protection.
The need for home educating families to protect
themselves from prosecution ended with the enactment of the home education
regulations in 1989. The stated purpose of these regulations was and
continues to be to “provide conditions governing the issuance of excuses
from school attendance, to provide for the consistent application thereof
throughout the state by superintendents, and to safeguard the primary right
of parents to provide the education for their children…” The universal
rights of parents were recognized – religious or secular.
There is no provision in 3301-35-08 which indicates
legislative intent for it to be used as a home
school option. It was intended to be applied to church-based schools
seeking to be free from financial ties to the state, and subsequently free
from the state mandate that all activities would have to conform to policies
adopted by the SBE.
Background of the Post-Secondary Enrollment
Options Program [PSEOP]
1989: The PSEOP was enacted by the Ohio General
Assembly through SB 140. At that time it provided an opportunity for 11th
and 12th grade students in chartered public and nonpublic high
schools to receive dual credit for high school and college through the
successful completion of college courses. Two options were provided – one
paid for by the parents and the other paid for by the State. The program
was intended to provide more rigorous learning opportunities for
academically accelerated students than were available through their own
school.
1997: The PSEOP was expanded to include 9th
and 10th grade students, as well as students enrolled in 08
schools through HB 215.
Growth of enrollment of nonpublic school students:
FY1997: 353 students (165 chartered nonpublic school
students; 188 nonchartered 08 students)
FY 2004: 1144 students (810 chartered nonpublic school
students; 434 nonchartered 08 students)
For the first time, in the
2004-05 school year more students applied for the PSEOP than funds were
available. At least 215 chartered school students were denied participation
in the program.
The Ohio Catholic Conference began lobbying for
additional funds and simultaneously seeking legislative support for
excluding 08 students from the program. They expressed concern that
students intended to be served by the program were prevented from
participating due to the increase of students not intended to be served
[i.e. individual families establishing their homes as 08 schools].
There has been a recent trend for families to register
as 08 schools for the limited purpose of pursuing state funds for the PSEOP.
This is exactly what 08 schools fought to avoid 30 years ago. Instead of
seeking 08 status because of “truly held religious beliefs” as the
regulation requires, it is being sought (in some cases) to gain access to
state financial assistance.
The other complication is that the PSEOP for nonpublic
schools has been funded through the Ohio Department of Education’s budget
designated for “auxiliary services” – GRF 200-511. This “general revenue
fund” line item exists to provide transportation services, nonpublic
administrative cost reimbursements, and other support services (i.e.
speech/hearing therapy) for nonpublic schools. $2 million for each FY06 and
FY 07 have been requested for PSEOP out of an annual allocation of $128
million. The problem is that the regulation for 08 schools has specified
since 1983 that “pupils attending a non-chartered, non-tax supported school
are not entitled to auxiliary services.” [OAC 3301-35-08(H)].
NOTE: This is what the Catholic Conference meant when
they publicly stated that 08 students were taking “their money.”
Proposed statutory changes in H.B.66 regarding
the PSEOP [draft 66LSC 126 0134-2]
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText126/126_HB_66_RH_Y.html
NOTE: The budget has over 79,000 lines of text. The
line numbers are indicated with each revision below. Any text not underlined
in the bill represents current law. Any text underlined represents a change
to current law.
- 3365.04(A) 08 students may only participate in the
PSEOP at their own expense. In addition, the college is required to award
full credit for the course completed, but simultaneous high school credit
is prohibited. (lines 28,891 – 28,906)
- 3365.04(B) Participation in the PSEOP by students in
public, chartered private, and community school students is paid for with
state funds and dual high school/college credit is earned.
08 students are
prohibited from participating under this section.
(lines 28,907 – 28,914; 28,919)
- 3365.04(B) Students in public, chartered nonpublic,
and community schools may not use this section to pay for physical
education courses at the college level. (lines 28,915 – 28,918)
- 3365.11 If the student participates in the PSEOP at
the State’s expense and does not pass the course, the parents must
reimburse the State. (lines 29,072 – 29,094)
Note: There are no changes proposed to chapter 3365
regarding the participation of 9th and 10th grade
students.
ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION to the PSEOP controversy:
The PESOP was never intended to be an entitlement
program. It was intended to give additional opportunities to advanced
students. I would suggest that the option be returned to its original
focus, but applied without discrimination.
What if access to PSEOP funds were not dependent on the “category” of
student? What if access would be available to anyone and treated as a
college scholarship? What if the dispersement of PSEOP funds were similar
to the Ohio Instructional Grants? What if the funds were not distributed by
the Ohio Department of Education through local schools?
Ohio Instructional Grants have a limited purpose -- serving low income
families. But, the only eligibility factor outside of income is to be a
resident of Ohio.
Suggested changes to state
law (conceptual wording - not in legaleze yet)
PSEO funds can be accessed by any living, breathing student in the 3rd or
4th year of his/her high school years, no matter where he is receiving his
education. The only requirement for eligibility would be to earn a minimum
score on the PSAT / SAT, or PLAN / ACT test, possibly a scaled score
equivalent to the 90th percentile or higher. This would ensure academic
preparedness of the student. These tests are already widely used in
universities/colleges as an entrance requirement.
Take the funds out of the secondary schools' line item and out of the
nonpublic auxiliary line item and run them through the Board of Regents.
The funds would be paid directly from the Board of Regents to the
university/college. To control state costs, limit it to juniors and seniors
and cap the number of hours (e.g. 8-9 semester hours or the equivalent in
quarter hours).
In this way 08 schools wouldn't have to take state money. The
universities would be receiving the state funds. If more students apply than
money is available, change the number of hours in the cap or use a lottery
system similar to the one used for excess enrollment in the
Cleveland voucher program.
Specifically excluding students, who are identified in law as having
truly held religious beliefs, amounts to religious discrimination –
prohibited under federal law.
In addition, the Ohio Constitution states [Article 2, Sec. 26]:
All laws, of a general nature, shall have a uniform operation throughout
the state...
So...put all 16-18 year olds on a level playing field.
Status of HB66: The Finance Committee is
expected to finalize the language and vote HB 66 out of committee this
weekend. The full House is expected to vote on the budget this coming
week. Then the process shifts to the Ohio Senate. Both chambers must vote
on the budget bill in final form by June 30th. At this point,
changes to the PSEOP amendment will not likely move forward in the House.
While it is important to communicate with elected officials, it would be
more realistic to begin focusing communication on members of the Senate.
Respectfully submitted,
Melanie Elsey
Legislative Liaison, C.H.E.O.
cheo@cheohome.org
