Tag Archives: Ohio school law

Bogus Complaint of Ohio ACLU Against Proposed Pledge of Allegiance Law

The Port Clinton News Herald published the following report about a proposed change in Ohio school law that would “strip Ohio School Boards of the authority to decide whether students should says the Pledge of Allegiance.” The law gives teachers sole authority to “decide if students in their classrooms will say the pledge.” Individual students would still be “allowed not to recite the pledge, but the proposal would prohibit anyone from altering it, such as adding or removing words.”

So, what is so bad about that?

“Christine Link, executive director of the ACLU in Ohio, said the proposed law violates free speech rights. School boards should retain the authority to decide if the pledge is appropriate.”

Whose free speech rights does this proposed law threaten? It is not students for they still have the right not to say the Pledge. It is not teachers who will gain greater discretionary authority in the classroom. That leaves those local school district officials who have decided students will not say the Pledge of Allegiance at school. Seeing the state already dictates school policy anyway, the loss of discretionary authority at the district level is almost meaningless.

The real problem is this: It “is a transparent attempt to force all school districts into mandating the pledge to be recited in all classrooms,” according to Link.

In other words, the proposed law threatens the ACLU’s socialist control over speech in the public domain.

Let’s evaluate this issue further. Children attend school to learn how to be good citizens of the United States of America. Engendering loyalty towards their national homeland is one of the original goals of public education. Who would grow up even to consider defending their nation if they did not highly value it? Stating the Pledge of Allegiance is instrumental in accomplishing that goal.

It must be acknowledged that the religion of some families forbid such acts. The flag could be viewed as object of idolatry, and a pledge could be compared to a religious oath. I cannot imagine any other reason for not pledging allegiance to their nations and the values it represents.

I almost forgot that the few atheists like those in the ACLU justify editing out of our nation’s historic Pledge those offending words like God through a secular interpretation of free speech rights.

Is it possible to edit out the same offending words and their synonyms from our nation’s founding documents? Even the second Constitution included the word Lord, which meant God not King Charles. It must be terribly offensive from them to read the multiple volumes of the Constitutional Convention debates. That is assuming they have actually read them. God was not left out. Then there are those federal building in which us etched scriptural references and even the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court chambers.

Over the edge are statements written into the Constitution of Ohio. For example, the Preamble states:

We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this
Constitution.

Article 1 Section 7 of the Bill of Rights states:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Ohio public schools are government institutions whose purpose is the inculcation of good citizenship in its citizens. It is the Constitutional responsibility of schools to teach children what a good government is, the essentials being religion, morality, and knowledge.

Requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance is not a violation of free speech whereas forbidding it is a violation of Constitutional law. When religion conflicts with offending practices, the Ohio Bill of Rights accommodates freedom of conscience. Even children of atheist parents have a right not to say the Pledge.

The intention of the proposed law is to eliminate politically incorrect censorship or denial of the Pledge in a nation under God.

Sources: Port Clinton News Herald, June 13, 2009.
                  The Ohio Constitution.

Xenia Community Schools Rebuilding Plan: What I Learned at the Forum

By Daniel Downs

Part One

While growing up, I attended public school in Xenia. I went to GJVS, Xenia High, West (now Warner) Jr. High, and the infamous Cox Elementary. On April 2, I returned to Cox. No, I was not having a senior moment. I was not attending a children’s program nor was I attempting to get in touch with my earlier self—whatever that means. I returned to Cox to attend the second of three Xenia Community School District Forums lead by Wright State University Center for Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA) staff.

The program began with a tour of the building. Leading the tour was maintenance supervisor Robert Smith. He presented a history of Cox Elementary school expansions, renovations, and problems. Smith pointed out several current problems such as an antiquated electrical system not capable of being properly maintained or handling needed computer systems and air conditioning. Another issue was old plumbing and bathroom facilities needing renovated as well as a collapsed drainage pipe and occasional flooding. When asked about the cost of fixing those problems, Smith said he would not venture a guess. He did indicate that those repairs would entail a major renovation.

I think Smith committed a Freudian slip when he said, “I will have plenty of money for maintenance whether new schools are built or not.” That statement led me to believe the school district has enough money to fix the current problems. But, in light of the nearly $122.5 million building project, I might have committed a subliminal misunderstanding.

After the tour, WSU-CUPA staff presented a general overview of the present situation. The state has determined that no Xenia school building except the current high school and the Central High School meets the two-thirds rule. The rule means the state will not fund any building renovation that would costs two-thirds or more of the cost to build a new facility. Originally, the Ohio School Facilities Commission had condemned all Xenia school buildings under the two-thirds rule but Xenia school officials argued that the two newest facilities were compliant with disability regulations. They also proposed a reuse plan for the current high school and Central Middle School. The high school would house all middle school students and Central Middle School would be converted into an elementary school. The state liked the reuse plan and consequently waived the two-thirds rule.

According to the state law, it is possible to renovate schools even when costs will exceed the two-thirds rule. The Ohio School Facilities Commission will waive the rule based on factors such as the historical significance of a building, adequacy of a school’s structure, space, classroom size, and egress. Other factors used to evaluate schools are quality of lighting and air, long-term durability, and the ability to meet American Disability Act standards. Consequently, Xenia could possibly renovate the historically significant central office building and most of the schools.

According to board member Bill Spahr, another state rule is that all schools must have at projected enrollment of at least 350 students to receive Ohio School Facilities Commission funding, which explains why Xenia school administrators plan to reduce the number of elementary schools from seven to five. Super-sizing Xenia schools also means almost all middle school students will travel by bus to what is now the high school. It means no more neighborhood schools for families now attending Spring Hill, Simon Kenton, or Cox.

The plan to build new schools at current school locations with sufficient land makes sense. Doing so will allow students to continue meeting in the same buildings until new ones are built. However, I see a conflict with the 350 rule and the current rebuilding plan. For example, building a new school at Tecumseh will not change its enrollment of 280 students. Up the road towards town is Shawnee with an enrollment of 288. Children now attending Shawnee will likely attend what is now Central Middle School. Because a complete renovation is not planned for Central, the 350 rule doesn’t apply. School administrators are not planning to rebuild at Spring Hill. So where will its students go? Will the 219 children attending Spring Hill be bused to Central or will a new school be built to service both Spring Hill students and those living at Wright Cycle Estates? Or will children living in the areas between South Detroit and Bellbrook Avenue get a new school? If so, will the 380 children attending Simon Kenton combine with the 383 at McKinley instead of the 239 students at Arrowood? Where does that leave the 346 children attending Cox? Where do school officials plan to bus them? To Tecumseh?

I think building a new school at Cox would be a better use of school property. It would at least give Cox students a school in reasonable proximity to their neighborhoods. Remember, those most affected by the rebuilding plan are elementary age children and their parents.

Originally published on April 26 in the Xenia Daily Gazette