LifeWise Academy frequently speaks of what makes Released Time for Religious Instruction (RTRI) legal — off school property, parent-permitted, and privately funded — but, LifeWise never addresses staying compliant with state-level RTRI laws in its public messaging.

Subscribe now

Local program LifeWise Grangeville opens in Idaho

In November 2025, the local LifeWise program serving Grangeville in Northwest Idaho announced enrollment was open for students of Grangeville Elementary Middle School (GEMS) of Mountain View School District in January 2026:

“We are excited to announce that enrollment is open and classes will start January 5th, 2026 for grades 2-5 when school resumes after the Christmas and New Year’s Holidays!”

Mountain View does not appear to have an RTRI policy.

After its second week of operating at Grangeville Community Church, local LifeWise director Fred Stevens announced that student enrollment more than doubled, from 8 to 19 students.

By May 2026, Stevens announced that LifeWise Grangeville was expanding into grades six to eight the next school year:

“As the year winds down, we have class parties next Tuesday. Thank you for the wonderful privilege and joy of launching Bible-based Character education for your students at GEMS! We look forward to expanding into 6-8th grades next year!”

Idaho law prohibits elementary and middle school RTRI

While Zorach v. Clauson (1952) gave a national legal framework to RTRI, states are also free to craft their RTRI statutes.

Idaho — a “may” state where public schools retain home rule to approve or decline RTRI operations — has enacted its own RTRI law limiting religious education programming to high schoolers:

“Upon application of his parent or guardian, or, if the student has attained the age of eighteen (18) years, upon application of the student, a student attending a public school in grades nine (9) through twelve (12) may be excused from school for a period not exceeding five (5) periods in any week or not exceeding one hundred sixty-five (165) hours per student during any one (1) school year for religious or other purposes.”

The website Released Time Religious Education run by School Ministries states that Idaho elementary school students may attend RTRI using Oregon’s RTRI statute (§ 339.420):

“Upon application of the parent or guardian of the child, or, if the child has attained the age of majority, upon application of the child, a child attending the public school may be excused from school for periods not exceeding two hours in any week for elementary pupils and five hours in any week for secondary pupils to attend weekday schools giving instruction in religion.”

LifeWise Grangeville ignores Idaho RTRI legal requirements

While establishing LifeWise Grangeville, its staff did not appear to address the legality of RTRI under Idaho law.

In December 2025, teacher Stephanie Bradley Brandt gave a presentation in which Idaho’s grade-level RTRI restrictions were not addressed.

On the LifeWise website, the Grangeville program lists it serves GEMS students in second, third, fourth, and fifth grades.

In April 2026, Stevens shared a LifeWise Facebook post showing a visual timeline of the programs’ national expansion; in a comment Stevens addressed the legality of RTRI without touching up on Idaho’s own RTRI statute:

“The comments on this paid promotional ad reveal that there is still a lot of confusion about released time education.

This is privately funded, off school property and parents must give permission for their children to participate.

LifeWise meets these criteria and is legal according to Zorach vs Clauson, a 1952 Supreme Court ruling.

Grangeville has a program for 2-5 grades and we plan to expand into 6-8 grades next year.

Please reach out of you have any questions!”

Will LifeWise Grangeville continue to operate illegally?

Many questions are left unanswered:

How did LifeWise Corporate allow LifeWise Grangeville to launch despite operating outside Idaho’s statute limiting RTRI to high school students?

Does LifeWise Academy Corporate leadership educate local program staff to follow their own state’s RTRI statutes?

How did the LifeWise Grangeville program get approved despite violating Idaho’s RTRI law?

LifeWise already has a history of legal threats against public schools

LifeWise’s counsel, First Liberty, has threatened legal action if a district prohibits candy and trinkets from being sent back to school with returning LifeWise students.

Alleging First Amendment violations, LifeWise is in active litigation against Everett Public Schools in Everett, Washington.

When will LifeWise Academy hold itself to the same legal standards it demands of other?

Before LifeWise demands compliance from school districts, it must answer a more fundamental question: why does it appear willing to ignore the very state laws that authorize its existence?

LifeWise Academy, a rapidly growing national released time for religious instruction program (RTRI), is under increasing scrutiny following multiple employees and a volunteer being charged with and pleading guilty to sex crimes against children — ranging from voyeurism to child rape — occurring outside the organization in Ohio.

These accounts of abuse have drawn attention to LifeWise’s background check process (as compared to those required by public schools), hiring policies, and standards regarding child safety within the organization.

However, what has not been examined is how LifeWise approved its children’s Bible study program to meet at a chemical factory employing a “sexually violent predator” in Butler, Indiana in 2024.

Children's Bible study approved at chemical factory employing a “sexually violent predator"

Initially approved in 2022, LifeWise expanded its program in late 2024 to the Dekalb County Eastern Community School District in Butler, Indiana, initially selecting the meeting location of a conference room at Color Master — a paint chemical factory — that employed a registered sex offender classified as a “sexually violent predator” convicted in 2008 of child molestation.

In August 2025, the Secular Education Association (SEA, formerly Parents Against LifeWise) detailed the Color Master child endangerment incident on their YouTube channel:

Also of concern, emails to parents from Butler Elementary principal Luke Cooper confirmed that school officials were aware the LifeWise program would be held at the Color Master chemical factory.

The Dekalb County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that LifeWise was approved to operate at the chemical factory location.

Following local outcry, the Dekalb Eastern LifeWise program was relocated to Butler Christian Community Church less than 1.5 miles from the school.

However, when contacted LifeWise has repeatedly failed to address inquiries regarding safety protocols, internal oversight, and how the Color Master chemical factory became an approved RTRI program location despite employing a “sexually violent predator.”

Why is SEA ignoring LifeWise approved children meeting at a chemical factory employing a sex offender?

SEA — whose stated mission is to protect kids — was aware of LifeWise approving children meeting at a chemical factory employing a registered sex offender.

In a statement to WOSU in May 2026, SEA co-founder Molly Gaines stated that SEA monitors potential child abuse concerns and believes programs like LifeWise require greater external oversight to protect children:

“The Secular Education Association, formerly called Parents Against LifeWise, uncovered the connections between these three men and LifeWise. The group opposes the movement to add religious education to public schools, like adding posters of the Ten Commandments into public school classrooms.

Molly Gaines, one of the Secular Education Association’s co-founders, told WOSU there needs to be more oversight of groups like LifeWise.

‘We’re finding watchdog activist groups like ours with no funding, with no backing...we’re the ones that are watching out for this sort of thing when it’s not our government, and it’s not our state institutions that are doing what they’re supposed to be doing to protect our kids,’ Gaines said. “

LifeWise has maintained its child safety protocols are sufficient:

“LifeWise maintains strict child safety policies designed to provide multiple layers of accountability. All staff and volunteers undergo background screenings through ADP Screening and Selection Services prior to serving… In addition, students are never left one-on-one with a single adult during LifeWise programming, and multiple adults are present in classrooms and student settings at all times. LifeWise also requires mandated reporter training and other child safety procedures.”

Even before the Color Master child endangerment incident, in July 2024 SEA uncovered a LifeWise director was hired despite previously being fired from an Ohio school over alleged sexting of minors and losing her teaching license— something LifeWise later said was missed due to a lack of criminal charges and the organization relying on self-disclosure.

While SEA has touched upon the Color Master child endangerment incident by LifeWise as a footnote in a YouTube video, it has not prominently highlighted the issue publicly.

Given recent child sexual abuse incidents involving multiple LifeWise employees and a volunteer, occurring outside the organization — and SEA’s stated mission to protect children — while SEA has recently highlighted their work uncovering the LifeWise director hired despite allegations of sexting with multiple minors, there still has been no mention by SEA of the Color Master child endangerment incident within media interviews.

What was in LifeWise’s control — and what wasn’t?

No organization can prevent or identify every future instance of child abuse or risk to children. Risks involving undisclosed behavior, unreported abuse, or future criminal conduct are, by definition, outside the complete control of any organization. However, organizations responsible for children still control how much preventable risk they create or tolerate through internal protocols, policies, and controls.

LifeWise controls its hiring standards, employee and volunteer screening processes, supervision requirements, and safety protocols. It can decide whether to require background checks equal to those required by public schools, whether to independently verify personal references, and whether to review the standing of professional licenses or prior employment history beyond self-disclosure.

What always remains within LifeWise’s control are the locations approved for its children’s RTRI programming.

The question is whether LifeWise exercised sound judgment over the risks that were entirely within its own power to reduce, mitigate, or avoid altogether — and, in the Color Master child endangerment incident:

LifeWise failed by choosing to send children to a chemical factory employing a sexually violent predator rather than selecting an available local church as the program location.

Would LifeWise be viewed differently today if the Color Master child endangerment incident had been reported in 2025?

Perhaps the most direct example supporting calls for greater external oversight — the Color Master child endangerment incident stands as the clearest smoking gun yet for LifeWise’s child safety failures.

But despite having the media connections, public credibility, and platform to amplify the Color Master child endangerment incident — SEA has not platformed this apparent breakdown in child safety oversight resulting from LifeWise’s own decisions.

is left asking:

Why has SEA repeatedly failed to highlight this critical child safety incident directly created by LifeWise’s own actions?

SEA’s silence on the Color Master child safety incident only serves to help LifeWise by shielding it from further scrutiny — not supporting SEA’s own stated mission of protecting children.

This Privacy Notice for LifeWise Exposed (”we,” “us,” or “our“), describes how and why we might access, collect, store, use, and/or share (”process“) your personal information when you use our services (”Services“), including when you:

• Visit our website at https://lifewise.exposed, or any website of ours that links to this Privacy Notice

• Engage with us in other related ways, including any sales, marketing, or events.

Questions or concerns? Reading this Privacy Notice will help you understand your privacy rights and choices. We are responsible for making decisions about how your personal information is processed. If you do not agree with our policies and practices, please do not use our Services. If you still have any questions or concerns, please contact us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

This summary provides key points from our Privacy Notice, but you can find out more details about any of these topics by clicking the link following each key point or by using our table of contents below to find the section you are looking for.

What personal information do we process? When you visit, use, or navigate our Services, we may process personal information depending on how you interact with us and the Services, the choices you make, and the products and features you use.

Do we process any sensitive personal information? Some of the information may be considered “special” or “sensitive” in certain jurisdictions, for example your racial or ethnic origins, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. We do not process sensitive personal information.

Do we collect any information from third parties? We do not collect any information from third parties.

How do we process your information? We process your information to provide, improve, and administer our Services, communicate with you, for security and fraud prevention, and to comply with law. We may also process your information for other purposes with your consent. We process your information only when we have a valid legal reason to do so.

In what situations and with which parties do we share personal information? We may share information in specific situations and with specific third parties. Learn more about when and with whom we share your personal information.

How do we keep your information safe? We have adequate organizational and technical processes and procedures in place to protect your personal information. However, no electronic transmission over the internet or information storage technology can be guaranteed to be 100% secure, so we cannot promise or guarantee that hackers, cybercriminals, or other unauthorized third parties will not be able to defeat our security and improperly collect, access, steal, or modify your information. Learn more about how we keep your information safe.

What are your rights? Depending on where you are located geographically, the applicable privacy law may mean you have certain rights regarding your personal information.

How do you exercise your rights? The easiest way to exercise your rights is by by contacting us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com. We will consider and act upon any request in accordance with applicable data protection laws.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT?

2. HOW DO WE PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?

3. WHAT LEGAL BASES DO WE RELY ON TO PROCESS YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?

4. WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?

5. DO WE USE COOKIES AND OTHER TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES?

6. HOW LONG DO WE KEEP YOUR INFORMATION?

7. HOW DO WE KEEP YOUR INFORMATION SAFE?

8. DO WE COLLECT INFORMATION FROM MINORS?

9. WHAT ARE YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS?

10. CONTROLS FOR DO-NOT-TRACK FEATURES

11. DO UNITED STATES RESIDENTS HAVE SPECIFIC PRIVACY RIGHTS?

12. DO WE MAKE UPDATES TO THIS NOTICE?

13. HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?

14. HOW CAN YOU REVIEW, UPDATE, OR DELETE THE DATA WE COLLECT FROM YOU?

1. WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT?

Personal information you disclose to us

In Short: We collect personal information that you provide to us.

We collect personal information that you voluntarily provide to us when you express an interest in obtaining information about us or our products and Services, when you participate in activities on the Services, or otherwise when you contact us.

Personal Information Provided by You. The personal information that we collect depends on the context of your interactions with us and the Services, the choices you make, and the products and features you use.

The personal information we collect may include the following:

• email addresses

• names

• contact preferences

• contact or authentication data

• mailing addresses

• phone numbers

Sensitive Information. We do not process sensitive information.

All personal information that you provide to us must be true, complete, and accurate, and you must notify us of any changes to such personal information.

Information automatically collected

In Short: Some information — such as your Internet Protocol (IP) address and/or browser and device characteristics — is collected automatically when you visit our Services.

We automatically collect certain information when you visit, use, or navigate the Services. This information does not reveal your specific identity (like your name or contact information) but may include device and usage information, such as your IP address, browser and device characteristics, operating system, language preferences, referring URLs, device name, country, location, information about how and when you use our Services, and other technical information. This information is primarily needed to maintain the security and operation of our Services, and for our internal analytics and reporting purposes.

Like many businesses, we also collect information through cookies and similar technologies.

The information we collect includes:

• Log and Usage Data. Log and usage data is service-related, diagnostic, usage, and performance information our servers automatically collect when you access or use our Services and which we record in log files. Depending on how you interact with us, this log data may include your IP address, device information, browser type, and settings and information about your activity in the Services (such as the date/time stamps associated with your usage, pages and files viewed, searches, and other actions you take such as which features you use), device event information (such as system activity, error reports (sometimes called “crash dumps”), and hardware settings).

• Device Data. We collect device data such as information about your computer, phone, tablet, or other device you use to access the Services. Depending on the device used, this device data may include information such as your IP address (or proxy server), device and application identification numbers, location, browser type, hardware model, Internet service provider and/or mobile carrier, operating system, and system configuration information.

• Location Data. We collect location data such as information about your device’s location, which can be either precise or imprecise. How much information we collect depends on the type and settings of the device you use to access the Services. For example, we may use GPS and other technologies to collect geolocation data that tells us your current location (based on your IP address). You can opt out of allowing us to collect this information either by refusing access to the information or by disabling your Location setting on your device. However, if you choose to opt out, you may not be able to use certain aspects of the Services.

2. HOW DO WE PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?

In Short: We process your information to provide, improve, and administer our Services, communicate with you, for security and fraud prevention, and to comply with law. We may also process your information for other purposes with your consent.

We process your personal information for a variety of reasons, depending on how you interact with our Services, including:

• To save or protect an individual’s vital interest. We may process your information when necessary to save or protect an individual’s vital interest, such as to prevent harm.

3. WHAT LEGAL BASES DO WE RELY ON TO PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?

In Short: We only process your personal information when we believe it is necessary and we have a valid legal reason (i.e., legal basis) to do so under applicable law, like with your consent, to comply with laws, to provide you with services to enter into or fulfill our contractual obligations, to protect your rights, or to fulfill our legitimate business interests.

If you are located in the EU or UK, this section applies to you.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and UK GDPR require us to explain the valid legal bases we rely on in order to process your personal information.

As such, we may rely on the following legal bases to process your personal information:

• Consent. We may process your information if you have given us permission (i.e., consent) to use your personal information for a specific purpose. You can withdraw your consent at any time.

• Legal Obligations. We may process your information where we believe it is necessary for compliance with our legal obligations, such as to cooperate with a law enforcement body or regulatory agency, exercise or defend our legal rights, or disclose your information as evidence in litigation in which we are involved.

• Vital Interests. We may process your information where we believe it is necessary to protect your vital interests or the vital interests of a third party, such as situations involving potential threats to the safety of any person.

If you are located in Canada, this section applies to you.

We may process your information if you have given us specific permission (i.e., express consent) to use your personal information for a specific purpose, or in situations where your permission can be inferred (i.e., implied consent). You can withdraw your consent at any time. In some exceptional cases, we may be legally permitted under applicable law to process your information without your consent, including, for example:

• If collection is clearly in the interests of an individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way

• For investigations and fraud detection and prevention

• For business transactions provided certain conditions are met

• If it is contained in a witness statement and the collection is necessary to assess, process, or settle an insurance claim

• For identifying injured, ill, or deceased persons and communicating with next of kin

• If we have reasonable grounds to believe an individual has been, is, or may be victim of financial abuse

• If it is reasonable to expect collection and use with consent would compromise the availability or the accuracy of the information and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province

• If disclosure is required to comply with a subpoena, warrant, court order, or rules of the court relating to the production of records

• If it was produced by an individual in the course of their employment, business, or profession and the collection is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced If the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes

• If the information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations

4. WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?

In Short: We may share information in specific situations described in this section and/or with the following third parties.

We may need to share your personal information in the following situations:

• Business Transfers. We may share or transfer your information in connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets, financing, or acquisition of all or a portion of our business to another company.

• When we use Google Maps Platform APIs. We may share your information with certain Google Maps Platform APIs (e.g., Google Maps API, Places API). Google Maps uses GPS, Wi-Fi, and cell towers to estimate your location. GPS is accurate to about 20 meters, while Wi-Fi and cell towers help improve accuracy when GPS signals are weak, like indoors. This data helps Google Maps provide directions, but it is not always perfectly precise.

5. DO WE USE COOKIES AND OTHER TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES?

In Short: We may use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect and store your information.

We may use cookies and similar tracking technologies (like web beacons and pixels) to gather information when you interact with our Services. Some online tracking technologies help us maintain the security of our Services, prevent crashes, fix bugs, save your preferences, and assist with basic site functions.

We also permit third parties and service providers to use online tracking technologies on our Services for analytics and advertising, including to help manage and display advertisements, to tailor advertisements to your interests, or to send abandoned shopping cart reminders (depending on your communication preferences). The third parties and service providers use their technology to provide advertising about products and services tailored to your interests which may appear either on our Services or on other websites.

To the extent these online tracking technologies are deemed to be a “sale”/”sharing” (which includes targeted advertising, as defined under the applicable laws) under applicable US state laws, you can opt out of these online tracking technologies by submitting a request as described below under section “DO UNITED STATES RESIDENTS HAVE SPECIFIC PRIVACY RIGHTS?“

Specific information about how we use such technologies and how you can refuse certain cookies is set out in our Cookie Notice.

Google Analytics

We may share your information with Google Analytics to track and analyze the use of the Services. The Google Analytics Advertising Features that we may use include: Remarketing with Google Analytics, Google Display Network Impressions Reporting and Google Analytics Demographics and Interests Reporting. To opt out of being tracked by Google Analytics across the Services, visit https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. You can opt out of Google Analytics Advertising Features through Ads Settings and Ad Settings for mobile apps. Other opt out means include http://optout.networkadvertising.org/ and http://www.networkadvertising.org/mobile-choice. For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms page.

6. HOW LONG DO WE KEEP YOUR INFORMATION?

In Short: We keep your information for as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes outlined in this Privacy Notice unless otherwise required by law.

We will only keep your personal information for as long as it is necessary for the purposes set out in this Privacy Notice, unless a longer retention period is required or permitted by law (such as tax, accounting, or other legal requirements).

When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize such information, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.

7. HOW DO WE KEEP YOUR INFORMATION SAFE

In Short: We aim to protect your personal information through a system of organizational and technical security measures.

We have implemented appropriate and reasonable technical and organizational security measures designed to protect the security of any personal information we process. However, despite our safeguards and efforts to secure your information, no electronic transmission over the Internet or information storage technology can be guaranteed to be 100% secure, so we cannot promise or guarantee that hackers, cybercriminals, or other unauthorized third parties will not be able to defeat our security and improperly collect, access, steal, or modify your information. Although we will do our best to protect your personal information, transmission of personal information to and from our Services is at your own risk. You should only access the Services within a secure environment.

8. DO WE COLLECT INFORMATION FROM MINORS?

In Short: We do not knowingly collect data from or market to children under 18 years of age.

We do not knowingly collect, solicit data from, or market to children under 18 years of age, nor do we knowingly sell such personal information. By using the Services, you represent that you are at least 18 or that you are the parent or guardian of such a minor and consent to such minor dependent’s use of the Services. If we learn that personal information from users less than 18 years of age has been collected, we will deactivate the account and take reasonable measures to promptly delete such data from our records. If you become aware of any data we may have collected from children under age 18, please contact us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

9. WHAT ARE YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS?

In Short: Depending on your state of residence in the US or in some regions, such as the European Economic Area (EEA), United Kingdom (UK), Switzerland, and Canada, you have rights that allow you greater access to and control over your personal information. You may review, change, or terminate your account at any time, depending on your country, province, or state of residence.

In some regions (like the EEA, UK, Switzerland, and Canada), you have certain rights under applicable data protection laws. These may include the right (i) to request access and obtain a copy of your personal information, (ii) to request rectification or erasure; (iii) to restrict the processing of your personal information; (iv) if applicable, to data portability; and (v) not to be subject to automated decision-making. In certain circumstances, you may also have the right to object to the processing of your personal information. You can make such a request by contacting us by using the contact details provided in the section “HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?“ below.

We will consider and act upon any request in accordance with applicable data protection laws.

If you are located in the EEA or UK and you believe we are unlawfully processing your personal information, you also have the right to complain to your Member State data protection authority or UK data protection authority.

If you are located in Switzerland, you may contact the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner.

Withdrawing your consent: If we are relying on your consent to process your personal information, which may be express and/or implied consent depending on the applicable law, you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. You can withdraw your consent at any time by contacting us by using the contact details provided in the section “HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?” below.

However, please note that this will not affect the lawfulness of the processing before its withdrawal nor, when applicable law allows, will it affect the processing of your personal information conducted in reliance on lawful processing grounds other than consent.

Opting out of marketing and promotional communications: You can unsubscribe from our marketing and promotional communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the emails that we send, or by contacting us using the details provided in the section “HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?” below. You will then be removed from the marketing lists. However, we may still communicate with you — for example, to send you service-related messages that are necessary for the administration and use of your account, to respond to service requests, or for other non-marketing purposes.

Cookies and similar technologies: Most Web browsers are set to accept cookies by default. If you prefer, you can usually choose to set your browser to remove cookies and to reject cookies. If you choose to remove cookies or reject cookies, this could affect certain features or services of our Services.

If you have questions or comments about your privacy rights, you may email us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

11. DO UNITED STATES RESIDENTS HAVE SPECIFIC PRIVACY RIGHTS?

In Short: If you are a resident of California, you may have the right to request access to and receive details about the personal information we maintain about you and how we have processed it, correct inaccuracies, get a copy of, or delete your personal information. You may also have the right to withdraw your consent to our processing of your personal information. These rights may be limited in some circumstances by applicable law. More information is provided below.

Categories of Personal Information We Collect

We have collected the following categories of personal information in the past twelve (12) months:

• Identifiers

  • Contact details, such as real name, alias, postal address, telephone or mobile contact number, unique personal identifier, online identifier, Internet Protocol address, email address, and account name

  • Collected? No

• Personal information as defined in the California Customer Records statute

  • Name, contact information, education, employment, employment history, and financial information

  • Collected? No

• Protected classification characteristics under state or federal law

  • Gender, age, date of birth, race and ethnicity, national origin, marital status, and other demographic data

  • Collected? No

• Commercial information

  • Transaction information, purchase history, financial details, and payment information

  • Collected? No

• Biometric information

  • Fingerprints and voiceprints

  • Collected? No

• Internet or other similar network activity

  • Browsing history, search history, online behavior, interest data, and interactions with our and other websites, applications, systems, and advertisements

  • Collected? No

• Geolocation data

  • Device location

  • Collected? No

• Audio, electronic, sensory, or similar information

  • Images and audio, video or call recordings created in connection with our business activities

  • Collected? No

• Professional or employment-related information

  • Business contact details in order to provide you our Services at a business level or job title, work history, and professional qualifications if you apply for a job with us

  • Collected? No

• Education Information

  • Student records and directory information

  • Collected? No

• Inferences drawn from collected personal information

  • Inferences drawn from any of the collected personal information listed above to create a profile or summary about, for example, an individual’s preferences and characteristics

  • Collected? No

• Sensitive personal Information

  • Collected? No

We may also collect other personal information outside of these categories through instances where you interact with us in person, online, or by phone or mail in the context of:

• Receiving help through our customer support channels;

• Participation in customer surveys or contests;

• and Facilitation in the delivery of our Services and to respond to your inquiries.

Sources of Personal Information

Learn more about the sources of personal information we collect in “WHAT INFORMATION DO WE COLLECT?“

How We Use and Share Personal Information

Learn about how we use your personal information in the section, “HOW DO WE PROCESS YOUR INFORMATION?“

Will your information be shared with anyone else?

We may disclose your personal information with our service providers pursuant to a written contract between us and each service provider. Learn more about how we disclose personal information to in the section, “WHEN AND WITH WHOM DO WE SHARE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?“

We may use your personal information for our own business purposes, such as for undertaking internal research for technological development and demonstration. This is not considered to be “selling” of your personal information.

We have not disclosed, sold, or shared any personal information to third parties for a business or commercial purpose in the preceding twelve (12) months. We will not sell or share personal information in the future belonging to website visitors, users, and other consumers.

Your Rights

You have rights under certain US state data protection laws. However, these rights are not absolute, and in certain cases, we may decline your request as permitted by law. These rights include:

• Right to know whether or not we are processing your personal data

• Right to access your personal data

• Right to correct inaccuracies in your personal data

• Right to request the deletion of your personal data

• Right to obtain a copy of the personal data you previously shared with us

• Right to non-discrimination for exercising your rights

• Right to opt out of the processing of your personal data if it is used for targeted advertising (or sharing as defined under California’s privacy law), the sale of personal data, or profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects (”profiling”)

Depending upon the state where you live, you may also have the following rights:

• Right to obtain a list of the categories of third parties to which we have disclosed personal data (as permitted by applicable law, including California’s privacy law)

• Right to limit use and disclosure of sensitive personal data (as permitted by applicable law, including California’s privacy law)

How to Exercise Your Rights

To exercise these rights, you can contact us by submitting a data subject access request to lifewise.exposed@gmail.com, or by referring to the contact details at the bottom of this document.

We will honor your opt-out preferences if you enact the Global Privacy Control (GPC) opt-out signal on your browser. Under certain US state data protection laws, you can designate an authorized agent to make a request on your behalf.

We may deny a request from an authorized agent that does not submit proof that they have been validly authorized to act on your behalf in accordance with applicable laws.

Request Verification

Upon receiving your request, we will need to verify your identity to determine you are the same person about whom we have the information in our system. We will only use personal information provided in your request to verify your identity or authority to make the request. However, if we cannot verify your identity from the information already maintained by us, we may request that you provide additional information for the purposes of verifying your identity and for security or fraud-prevention purposes.

If you submit the request through an authorized agent, we may need to collect additional information to verify your identity before processing your request and the agent will need to provide a written and signed permission from you to submit such request on your behalf.

California “Shine The Light” Law

California Civil Code Section 1798.83, also known as the “Shine The Light” law, permits our users who are California residents to request and obtain from us, once a year and free of charge, information about categories of personal information (if any) we disclosed to third parties for direct marketing purposes and the names and addresses of all third parties with which we shared personal information in the immediately preceding calendar year. If you are a California resident and would like to make such a request, please submit your request in writing to us by using the contact details provided in the section “HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?“

12. DO WE MAKE UPDATES TO THIS NOTICE?

In Short: Yes, we will update this notice as necessary to stay compliant with relevant laws.

We may update this Privacy Notice from time to time. The updated version will be indicated by an updated “Revised” date at the top of this Privacy Notice. If we make material changes to this Privacy Notice, we may notify you either by prominently posting a notice of such changes or by directly sending you a notification. We encourage you to review this Privacy Notice frequently to be informed of how we are protecting your information.

13. HOW CAN YOU CONTACT US ABOUT THIS NOTICE?

If you have questions or comments about this notice, you may email us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

14. HOW CAN YOU REVIEW, UPDATE, OR DELETE THE DATA WE COLLECT FROM YOU?

Based on the applicable laws of your country or state of residence in the US, you may have the right to request access to the personal information we collect from you, details about how we have processed it, correct inaccuracies, or delete your personal information. You may also have the right to withdraw your consent to our processing of your personal information. These rights may be limited in some circumstances by applicable law. To request to review, update, or delete your personal informational please email us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

AGREEMENT TO OUR LEGAL TERMS

We are LifeWise Exposed (”Company,” “we,” “us,” “our”).

We operate , as well as any other related products and services that refer or link to these legal terms (the “Legal Terms”) (collectively, the “Services”). You can contact us by email at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

These Legal Terms constitute a legally binding agreement made between you, whether personally or on behalf of an entity (”you”), and LifWise Exposed, concerning your access to and use of the Services. You agree that by accessing the Services, you have read, understood, and agreed to be bound by all of these Legal Terms. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THESE LEGAL TERMS, THEN YOU ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM USING THE SERVICES AND YOU MUST DISCONTINUE USE IMMEDIATELY.

Supplemental terms and conditions or documents that may be posted on the Services from time to time are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference. We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to make changes or modifications to these Legal Terms at any time and for any reason. We will alert you about any changes by updating the “Last updated” date of these Legal Terms, and you waive any right to receive specific notice of each such change. It is your responsibility to periodically review these Legal Terms to stay informed of updates. You will be subject to, and will be deemed to have been made aware of and to have accepted, the changes in any revised Legal Terms by your continued use of the Services after the date such revised Legal Terms are posted.

We recommend that you print a copy of these Legal Terms for your records.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OUR SERVICES

2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

3. USER REPRESENTATIONS

4. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

5. USER GENERATED CONTRIBUTIONS

6. CONTRIBUTION LICENSE

7. SERVICES MANAGEMENT

8. TERM AND TERMINATION

9. MODIFICATIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS

10. GOVERNING LAW

11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

12. CORRECTIONS

13. DISCLAIMER

14. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY

15. INDEMNIFICATION

16. USER DATA

17. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION

1. OUR SERVICES

The information provided when using the Services is not intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would subject us to any registration requirement within such jurisdiction or country. Accordingly, those persons who choose to access the Services from other locations do so on their own initiative and are solely responsible for compliance with local laws, if and to the extent local laws are applicable.

2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Our intellectual property

We are the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property rights in our Services, including all source code, databases, functionality, software, website designs, audio, video, text, photographs, and graphics in the Services (collectively, the “Content”), as well as the trademarks, service marks, and logos contained therein (the “Marks”).

Our Content and Marks are protected by copyright and trademark laws (and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws) and treaties in the United States and around the world.

The Content and Marks are provided in or through the Services “AS IS” for your personal, non-commercial use or internal business purpose only.

Your use of our Services

Subject to your compliance with these Legal Terms, including the “PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES“ section below, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to:

• access the Services; and

• download or print a copy of any portion of the Content to which you have properly gained access.

solely for your personal, non-commercial use or internal business purpose.

Except as set out in this section or elsewhere in our Legal Terms, no part of the Services and no Content or Marks may be copied, reproduced, aggregated, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted, distributed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose whatsoever, without our express prior written permission.

If you wish to make any use of the Services, Content, or Marks other than as set out in this section or elsewhere in our Legal Terms, please address your request to lifewise.exposed@gmail.com. If we ever grant you the permission to post, reproduce, or publicly display any part of our Services or Content, you must identify us as the owners or licensors of the Services, Content, or Marks and ensure that any copyright or proprietary notice appears or is visible on posting, reproducing, or displaying our Content.

We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you in and to the Services, Content, and Marks.

Any breach of these Intellectual Property Rights will constitute a material breach of our Legal Terms and your right to use our Services will terminate immediately.

Your submissions

Please review this section and the “PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES“ section carefully prior to using our Services to understand the (a) rights you give us and (b) obligations you have when you post or upload any content through the Services.

Submissions: By directly sending us any question, comment, suggestion, idea, feedback, or other information about the Services (”Submissions”), you agree to assign to us all intellectual property rights in such Submission. You agree that we shall own this Submission and be entitled to its unrestricted use and dissemination for any lawful purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you.

You are responsible for what you post or upload: By sending us Submissions through any part of the Services you:

• confirm that you have read and agree with our “PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES“ and will not post, send, publish, upload, or transmit through the Services any Submission that is illegal, harassing, hateful, harmful, defamatory, obscene, bullying, abusive, discriminatory, threatening to any person or group, sexually explicit, false, inaccurate, deceitful, or misleading;

• to the extent permissible by applicable law, waive any and all moral rights to any such Submission;

• warrant that any such Submission are original to you or that you have the necessary rights and licenses to submit such Submissions and that you have full authority to grant us the above-mentioned rights in relation to your Submissions; and

• warrant and represent that your Submissions do not constitute confidential information.

You are solely responsible for your Submissions and you expressly agree to reimburse us for any and all losses that we may suffer because of your breach of (a) this section, (b) any third party’s intellectual property rights, or (c) applicable law.

3. USER REPRESENTATIONS

By using the Services, you represent and warrant that: (1) you have the legal capacity and you agree to comply with these Legal Terms; (2) you are not a minor in the jurisdiction in which you reside; (3) you will not access the Services through automated or non-human means, whether through a bot, script or otherwise; (4) you will not use the Services for any illegal or unauthorized purpose; and (5) your use of the Services will not violate any applicable law or regulation.

If you provide any information that is untrue, inaccurate, not current, or incomplete, we have the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Services (or any portion thereof).

4. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

You may not access or use the Services for any purpose other than that for which we make the Services available. The Services may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by us.

As a user of the Services, you agree not to:

• Systematically retrieve data or other content from the

• Services to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database, or directory without written permission from us.

• Trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users, especially in any attempt to learn sensitive account information such as user passwords.

• Circumvent, disable, or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Services, including features that prevent or restrict the use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on the use of the Services and/or the Content contained therein.

• Disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Services. Use any information obtained from the Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person.

• Make improper use of our support services or submit false reports of abuse or misconduct.

• Use the Services in a manner inconsistent with any applicable laws or regulations.

• Engage in unauthorized framing of or linking to the Services.

• Upload or transmit (or attempt to upload or to transmit) viruses, Trojan horses, or other material, including excessive use of capital letters and spamming (continuous posting of repetitive text), that interferes with any party’s uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the Services or modifies, impairs, disrupts, alters, or interferes with the use, features, functions, operation, or maintenance of the Services.

• Engage in any automated use of the system, such as using scripts to send comments or messages, or using any data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools.

• Delete the copyright or other proprietary rights notice from any Content.

• Attempt to impersonate another user or person or use the username of another user.

• Upload or transmit (or attempt to upload or to transmit) any material that acts as a passive or active information collection or transmission mechanism, including without limitation, clear graphics interchange formats (”gifs”), 1×1 pixels, web bugs, cookies, or other similar devices (sometimes referred to as “spyware” or “passive collection mechanisms” or “pcms”).

• Interfere with, disrupt, or create an undue burden on the Services or the networks or services connected to the Services.

• Harass, annoy, intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Services to you.

• Attempt to bypass any measures of the Services designed to prevent or restrict access to the Services, or any portion of the Services.

• Copy or adapt the Services’ software, including but not limited to Flash, PHP, HTML, JavaScript, or other code.

• Except as permitted by applicable law, decipher, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer any of the software comprising or in any way making up a part of the Services.

• Except as may be the result of standard search engine or Internet browser usage, use, launch, develop, or distribute any automated system, including without limitation, any spider, robot, cheat utility, scraper, or offline reader that accesses the Services, or use or launch any unauthorized script or other software. Use a buying agent or purchasing agent to make purchases on the Services.

• Make any unauthorized use of the Services, including collecting usernames and/or email addresses of users by electronic or other means for the purpose of sending unsolicited email, or creating user accounts by automated means or under false pretenses.

• Use the Services as part of any effort to compete with us or otherwise use the Services and/or the Content for any revenuegenerating endeavor or commercial enterprise.

5. USER GENERATED CONTRIBUTIONS

The Services does not offer users to submit or post content. We may provide you with the opportunity to create, submit, post, display, transmit, perform, publish, distribute, or broadcast content and materials to us or on the Services, including but not limited to text, writings, video, audio, photographs, graphics, comments, suggestions, or personal information or other material (collectively, “Contributions”). Contributions may be viewable by other users of the Services and through third-party websites. When you create or make available any Contributions, you thereby represent and warrant that:

6. CONTRIBUTION LICENSE

You and Services agree that we may access, store, process, and use any information and personal data that you provide and your choices (including settings).

By submitting suggestions or other feedback regarding the Services, you agree that we can use and share such feedback for any purpose without compensation to you.

We do not assert any ownership over your Contributions. You retain full ownership of all of your Contributions and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your Contributions. We are not liable for any statements or representations in your Contributions provided by you in any area on the Services. You are solely responsible for your Contributions to the Services and you expressly agree to exonerate us from any and all responsibility and to refrain from any legal action against us regarding your Contributions.

7. SERVICES MANAGEMENT

We reserve the right, but not the obligation, to: (1) monitor the Services for violations of these Legal Terms; (2) take appropriate legal action against anyone who, in our sole discretion, violates the law or these Legal Terms, including without limitation, reporting such user to law enforcement authorities; (3) in our sole discretion and without limitation, refuse, restrict accesterms to, limit the availability of, or disable (to the extent technologically feasible) any of your Contributions or any portion thereof; (4) in our sole discretion and without limitation, notice, or liability, to remove from the Services or otherwise disable all files and content that are excessive in size or are in any way burdensome to our systems; and (5) otherwise manage the Services in a manner designed to protect our rights and property and to facilitate the proper functioning of the Services.

8. TERM AND TERMINATION

These Legal Terms shall remain in full force and effect while you use the Services. WITHOUT LIMITING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THESE LEGAL TERMS, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICES (INCLUDING BLOCKING CERTAIN IP ADDRESSES), TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR BREACH OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR COVENANT CONTAINED IN THESE LEGAL TERMS OR OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION. WE MAY TERMINATE YOUR USE OR PARTICIPATION IN THE SERVICES OR DELETE ANY CONTENT OR INFORMATION THAT YOU POSTED AT ANY TIME, WITHOUT WARNING, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION.

If we terminate or suspend your account for any reason, you are prohibited from registering and creating a new account under your name, a fake or borrowed name, or the name of any third party, even if you may be acting on behalf of the third party. In addition to terminating or suspending your account, we reserve the right to take appropriate legal action, including without limitation pursuing civil, criminal, and injunctive redress.

9. MODIFICATIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS

We reserve the right to change, modify, or remove the contents of the Services at any time or for any reason at our sole discretion without notice. However, we have no obligation to update any information on our Services. We will not be liable to you or any third party for any modification, price change, suspension, or discontinuance of the Services.

We cannot guarantee the Services will be available at all times. We may experience hardware, software, or other problems or need to perform maintenance related to the Services, resulting in interruptions, delays, or errors. We reserve the right to change, revise, update, suspend, discontinue, or otherwise modify the Services at any time or for any reason without notice to you. You agree that we have no liability whatsoever for any loss, damage, or inconvenience caused by your inability to access or use the Services during any downtime or discontinuance of the Services. Nothing in these Legal Terms will be construed to obligate us to maintain and support the Services or to supply any corrections, updates, or releases in connection therewith.

10. GOVERNING LAW

These Legal Terms shall be governed by and defined following the laws of the State of California and yourself irrevocably consent that the courts of California shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any dispute which may arise in connection with these Legal Terms.

11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Informal Negotiations

To expedite resolution and control the cost of any dispute, controversy, or claim related to these Legal Terms (each a “Dispute” and collectively, the “Disputes”) brought by either you or us (individually, a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”), the Parties agree to first attempt to negotiate any Dispute (except those Disputes expressly provided below) informally for at least 60 days before initiating arbitration. Such informal negotiations commence upon written notice from one Party to the other Party.

Binding Arbitration

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with these Legal Terms, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by the International Commercial Arbitration Court under the European Arbitration Chamber (Belgium, Brussels, Avenue Louise, 146) according to the Rules of this ICAC, which, as a result of referring to it, is considered as the part of this clause. Each Party shall appoint one Arbitrator. The seat, or legal place, or arbitration shall be the State of California. The language of the proceedings shall be English. The governing law of these Legal Terms shall be substantive law of the State of California.

Restrictions

The Parties agree that any arbitration shall be limited to the Dispute between the Parties individually. To the full extent permitted by law, (a) no arbitration shall be joined with any other proceeding; (b) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be arbitrated on a class-action basis or to utilize class action procedures; and (c) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be brought in a purported representative capacity on behalf of the general public or any other persons. Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court.

12. CORRECTIONS

There may be information on the Services that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Services at any time, without prior notice.

13. DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON AN AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE BASIS. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE AT YOUR SOLE RISK. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, WE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES AND YOUR USE THEREOF, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICES’ CONTENT OR THE CONTENT OF ANY WEBSITES OR MOBILE APPLICATIONS LINKED TO THE SERVICES AND WE WILL ASSUME NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY (1) ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT AND MATERIALS, (2) PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, RESULTING FROM YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICES, (3) ANY UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR USE OF OUR SECURE SERVERS AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION AND/OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION STORED THEREIN, (4) ANY INTERRUPTION OR CESSATION OF TRANSMISSION TO OR FROM THE SERVICES, (5) ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE WHICH MAY BE TRANSMITTED TO OR THROUGH THE SERVICES BY ANY THIRD PARTY, AND/OR (6) ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY CONTENT AND MATERIALS OR FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF ANY CONTENT POSTED, TRANSMITTED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE SERVICES. WE DO NOT WARRANT, ENDORSE, GUARANTEE, OR ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE ADVERTISED OR OFFERED BY A THIRD PARTY THROUGH THE SERVICES, ANY HYPERLINKED WEBSITE, OR ANY WEBSITE OR MOBILE APPLICATION FEATURED IN ANY BANNER OR OTHER ADVERTISING, AND WE WILL NOT BE A PARTY TO OR IN ANY WAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN YOU AND ANY THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. AS WITH THE PURCHASE OF A PRODUCT OR SERVICE THROUGH ANY MEDIUM OR IN ANY ENVIRONMENT, YOU SHOULD USE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT AND EXERCISE CAUTION WHERE APPROPRIATE.

14. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY

IN NO EVENT WILL WE OR OUR DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFIT, LOST REVENUE, LOSS OF DATA, OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED HEREIN, OUR LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER AND REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF THE ACTION, WILL AT ALL TIMES BE LIMITED TO THE LESSER OF THE AMOUNT PAID, IF ANY, BY YOU TO US OR . CERTAIN US STATE LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS ON IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF CERTAIN DAMAGES. IF THESE LAWS APPLY TO YOU, SOME OR ALL OF THE ABOVE DISCLAIMERS OR LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU, AND YOU MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL RIGHTS.

15. INDEMNIFICATION

You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold us harmless, including our subsidiaries, affiliates, and all of our respective officers, agents, partners, and employees, from and against any loss, damage, liability, claim, or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, made by any third party due to or arising out of: (1) use of the Services; (2) breach of these Legal Terms; (3) any breach of your representations and warranties set forth in these Legal Terms; (4) your violation of the rights of a third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights; or (5) any overt harmful act toward any other user of the Services with whom you connected via the Services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter for which you are required to indemnify us, and you agree to cooperate, at your expense, with our defense of such claims. We will use reasonable efforts to notify you of any such claim, action, or proceeding which is subject to this indemnification upon becoming aware of it.

16. USER DATA

We will maintain certain data that you transmit to the Services for the purpose of managing the performance of the Services, as well as data relating to your use of the Services. Although we perform regular routine backups of data, you are solely responsible for all data that you transmit or that relates to any activity you have undertaken using the Services. You agree that we shall have no liability to you for any loss or corruption of any such data, and you hereby waive any right of action against us arising from any such loss or corruption of such data.

17. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSACTIONS, AND SIGNATURES

Visiting the Services, sending us emails, and completing online forms constitute electronic communications. You consent to receive electronic communications, and you agree that all agreements, notices, disclosures, and other communications we provide to you electronically, via email and on the Services, satisfy any legal requirement that such communication be in writing. YOU HEREBY AGREE TO THE USE OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES, CONTRACTS, ORDERS, AND OTHER RECORDS, AND TO ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF NOTICES, POLICIES, AND RECORDS OF TRANSACTIONS INITIATED OR COMPLETED BY US OR VIA THE SERVICES. You hereby waive any rights or requirements under any statutes, regulations, rules, ordinances, or other laws in any jurisdiction which require an original signature or delivery or retention of non-electronic records, or to payments or the granting of credits by any means other than electronic means.

18. MISCELLANEOUS

These Legal Terms and any policies or operating rules posted by us on the Services or in respect to the Services constitute the entire agreement and understanding between you and us. Our failure to exercise or enforce any right or provision of these Legal Terms shall not operate as a waiver of such right or provision. These Legal Terms operate to the fullest extent permissible by law. We may assign any or all of our rights and obligations to others at any time. We shall not be responsible or liable for any loss, damage, delay, or failure to act caused by any cause beyond our reasonable control. If any provision or part of a provision of these Legal Terms is determined to be unlawful, void, or unenforceable, that provision or part of the provision is deemed severable from these Legal Terms and does not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. There is no joint venture, partnership, employment or agency relationship created between you and us as a result of these Legal Terms or use of the Services. You agree that these Legal Terms will not be construed against us by virtue of having drafted them. You hereby waive any and all defenses you may have based on the electronic form of these Legal Terms and the lack of signing by the parties hereto to execute these Legal Terms.

19. CONTACT US

In order to resolve a complaint regarding the Services or to receive further information regarding use of the Services, please contact us at lifewise.exposed@gmail.com.

Before getting into released time for religious instruction (RTRI) policy frameworks, safeguards, or model language, it’s worth stating plainly — because too many school districts and public education advocates are missing this fundamental truth entirely:

The best RTRI policy is no RTRI policy at all

That’s not rhetorical — it’s strategic.

Unless your school opts to allow released time operations during the school day — in which case it is always recommended to implement a strong RTRI policy — simply adopting an RTRI policy may expose a school to risk.

An RTRI policy does not just create guidelines and enforceable accountability, it also establishes an entry point for organizations like LifeWise Academy to more easily infiltrate public school districts.

An RTRI policy signals that a district may accommodate released time programs

A school’s RTRI policy establishes the infrastructure needed for released time programs to begin operations — and with the majority of states already mandating excused absences for holy days religious accommodations are already available for many students.

However, the presence of a district’s RTRI policy can put that public school on the radar of LifeWise and similar programs, effectively placing it at the top of their list due to the ease of entry.

The inverse is also true: in states where no law requires RTRI, the absence of a policy can act as a deterrent. Without a formal mechanism in place within existing school policy, there is no clear pathway for a released time program to seek access without a school potentially throwing up additional hurdles.

This distinction matters depending on the state in which a district is located and that state’s RTRI statute (or lack thereof)

Released time statutes will vary by state. In states with no RTRI statute where released time access is entirely left to individual school districts, legal experts generally agree that the safest course of action is to avoid adopting a released time policy altogether.

States with no RTRI statute:

Alaska

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Georgia

Kansas

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

Rhode Island

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

In so-called “may” states where RTRI is permitted but not legally required, districts still retain discretion and home rule. Here too, simply not adopting an RTRI policy may be the most effective way to avoid the entry of a released time program intent on removing children during the school day.

States with an RTRI statute, where districts “may” allow RTRI operations:

Alabama

Arizona

California

Idaho

Kentucky

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Mexico

Oregon

South Carolina

South Dakota

Utah

West Virginia

States mandating RTRI require an ironclad, public education-centric released time policy

Only in “shall” states, where RTRI policies are mandated by law, do public schools lose autonomy to decline released time operations in their districts. In those states, the question is no longer whether to adopt a policy — but rather, how to do so without exposing students or the district to unnecessary risk and disruption of the school day.

States with a mandated RTRI statute, where districts “shall” (must!) allow released time operations:

Florida

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Montana

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Wisconsin

How do you craft a strong RTRI policy?

As “shall” states require a strong RTRI policy, it is imperative that each school district design and adopt an RTRI which protects district liability, maintains the integrity of school day operations and students’ educational access, and limits released time programs’ encroachment.

This is where the latest RTRI model policies from Respect Public Schools and Respect Public Schools-WA come in — which we will examine next.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to .

LifeWise Academy’s premise that Bible study is legal “during school hours” rests upon its oft-repeated legal holy trinity requirement of its RTRI programming being “off school property, privately funded, parent permitted.”

However, as first reported by , LifeWise Elmwood has been operating on taxpayer-funded public school property during school hours in Elmwood Local School District’s community center since September 2022.

Release-time programs must still occur off school property

The Supreme Court found in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) that religious education may not be supported or mandated by the government, removing Bible study from public schools:

“This utilization of the State’s tax supported public school system and its machinery for compulsory public school attendance to enable sectarian groups to give religious instruction to public school pupils in public school buildings violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Court allowed religious release-time programs but only under strict conditions: schools may do nothing more than release students whose parents request it.

They cannot provide facilities, resources, or preferential treatment.

Ohio law reflects that same requirement: release-time courses must occur off school district property:

“…student is excused from school to attend a course in religious instruction conducted by a private entity off school district property.”

LifeWise cites the wrong Supreme Court cases in Elmwood

Despite the Freedom From Religious Foundation (FFRF) issuing a letter in February 2026 to Elmwood school administration warning LifeWise classes are held unconstitutionally on public school property, LifeWise is defending its presence by invoking the equal access argument.

The RTRI provider recently claimed:

“LifeWise rents space at the Community Center at a market rate under the same neutral access policies that apply to other community groups. The Community Center is a standalone facility owned by the district but made available for community use. Once a public entity opens a facility for broad public use, it cannot exclude religious organizations solely because they are religious.”

This argument relies on Supreme Court rulings like Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches (1993) and Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). Both cases held that religious groups cannot be excluded from public school facilities when other community groups are allowed equal access.

“The showing of this film series would not have been during school hours, would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just to church members. The District property had repeatedly been used by a wide variety of private organizations. Under these circumstances, as in Widmar, there would have been no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental.”

Good News Club directly references Lamb’s Chapel in its majority opinion:

“As in Lamb’s Chapel, the Club’s meetings were to be held after school hours, not sponsored by the school, and open to any student who obtained parental consent, not just to Club members.”

But those rulings share an important limitation — they explicitly apply to equal access to school facilities after school hours.

Elmwood breaks constitutional government neutrality giving preferential treatment to a religious group

Dating from 2010, Elmwood’s facility policy explicitly states that school premises, including the community center, may be used by community groups — including religious organizations, and for students explicitly during non-school hours.

“…community organizations or groups of individuals primarily comprised of District residents/members of the community, including students (during non-school hours) and employees (when not working in the scope of their employment) formed or gathered for charitable, civic, social, religious, recreational (e.g., indoor or outdoor games or physical activities, either organized or unorganized, that are undertaken for exercise, relaxation, diversion, sport, or pleasure), and/or educational purposes, provided such meetings and/or entertainment is nonexclusive and open to the general public”

As LifeWise RTRI programming is not open to the general public and students are pulled during school hours from class to attend, Elmwood has shown preferential treatment to LifeWise by violating its own policy.

As FFRF stated in its letter to Elmwood:

“It appears that the District is giving LifeWise favored treatment that it does not provide to other organizations renting Community Center rooms.”

LifeWise is receiving special access to the community center that the policy does not allow anyone else — that distinction matters legally. The Supreme Court cases LifeWise references protect equal access under the law, but they do not authorize schools to bend their own rules to accommodate a religious program.

The constitutional problem: preferential treatment during the school day

The constitutional issue raised in Elmwood letting LifeWise operate on school property during school hours is both an improper use of government resources for a religious institution and a violation of students’ rights not to be subjected to religious indoctrination.

As FFRF further stated in its letter to Elmwood:

“The Supreme Court has specifically struck down a scheme in which Bible classes were held on school property because it constituted ‘a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith.’”

According to a complaint sent to the district, LifeWise has been renting space in the district-owned Community Center during the school day since 2022, despite policies stating outside organizations cannot rent space there during school hours.

If accurate, that means LifeWise is not being treated the same as other community groups.

LifeWise is receiving access that district policy does not allow for other groups — a distinction that matters legally. The Supreme Court cases LifeWise cites protect equal access, but they do not authorize schools to bend their own policies to accommodate a religious program.

Can RTRI programs on school campus make kids think Bible study is school-endorsed?

While LifeWise operating on Elmwood public school property is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, it raises the question: does LifeWise operating on school property give students the impression Bible study is part of their school curriculum, or that Bible study is school-endorsed?

The Court in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) struck down student-led prayer — on school property, during a school event — as it appeared school endorsed:

“…an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school’s seal of approval.”

If an objective high school student cannot be expected to differentiate between the separate offices of church and state, how can Elmwood elementary school children attending LifeWise on public school property be expected to make this same distinction?

Just as their public school teachers have settled into and decorated their classrooms in Elmwood’s public school buildings — so have LifeWise teachers, as evidenced in the photos within this article.

Constitutionally required equal access does not allow for special access for LifeWise

The Constitution requires government neutrality toward religion — no exceptions.

Cases like Lamb’s Chapel and Good News Club ensure that religious groups cannot be excluded from public facilities that are open to everyone else.

But neutrality cuts both ways.

If Elmwood’s policy restricts community use of school facilities to non-school hours, allowing LifeWise to operate there during the school day is not equal access.

This is preferential treatment toward LifeWise Academy by Elmwood Local School District — no Supreme Court case authorizes that.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to LifeWise Exposed.

For opponents of LifeWise Academy and advocates of public schools, clear understanding of canonical legal principles matter.

Constitutional disputes are not decided by instinct, discomfort, or moral conviction — they are decided by legal doctrine. Government neutrality has a specific legal meaning rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence, and misunderstanding it weakens advocacy rather than strengthens it.

Courts do not weigh what feels “fair” or “improper.” Rather, they apply precedent, statutory language, and established standards such as viewpoint neutrality and equal treatment.

Notably, LifeWise has often minimized or avoided addressing the role government neutrality toward religious institutions plays in making Religious Release Time Instruction (RTRI) legally permissible to begin with. That glaring omission makes it even more important for critics of LifeWise and RTRI to understand neutrality accurately and precisely.

If opponents want durable outcomes, their arguments must be grounded in how the law actually operates — not how they wish it operated.

LifeWise sues Everett Public Schools, claiming religious discrimination due to lack of viewpoint neutrality

In November 2025, LifeWise sent a demand letter to Everett Public Schools in Washington State threatening legal action if school administration did not “reverse course” on district policy it claimed infringed upon their First Amendment rights.

After Everett did not meet LifeWise’s demands, in December 2025 LifeWise filed suit in the Western District of Washington in U.S. District Court.

Read Everett’s response here, and Everett LifeWise assistant director Sarah Sweeny’s support of LifeWise’s motion for preliminary injunction here.

In early 2026, LifeWise’s legal counsel Jeremy Dys of First Liberty Institute, and Molly Gaines of the Secular Education Association (SEA), published op-eds in the Herald.

How SEA gets constitutionally required viewpoint neutrality wrong

Disputes over RTRI rarely begin with constitutional doctrine.

Instead, disagreements start with everyday issues impacting everyday people: an RTRI table at a school fair, a religious flyer in a school take-home folder, a request for visibility alongside other — often secular — community organizations.

What follows is often framed as a culture war — between proponents of church-state separation and proponents of freedom of religion — but in reality, it invokes the established legal precedent of constitutionally required viewpoint neutrality by government entities towards religious groups under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Just as public schools are not constitutionally required to provide access to RTRI programming during school hours, they also are not required to open their doors to outside groups after school hours.

However, once they do — once schools create a flyer system, a facility rental program, or a community fair — constitutionality applies to all groups equally in a limited public forum regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof).

“A forum intentionally designated by the government for the use of certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects. In limited public forums the government may only allow speech of certain genres or subjects and impose blanket restrictions on the discussion of other genres.

Any restriction on speech in a limited public forum must:

• Be viewpoint neutral.

• Be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.

• Not selectively deny access for speech in the genre or subject specifically allowed in the limited public forum.”

The most important of those rules is simple: no viewpoint discrimination — enforced through the government’s obligation to remain viewpoint neutral.

That principle is not a concession to religion; instead, it is a bedrock of free speech doctrine.

Religious organizations are not legally invisible. To the contrary, they are participants in the same First Amendment framework governing secular groups operating within the same communities. As the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) itself acknowledges, when a school establishes a limited public forum, it generally may not discriminate against religious organizations if similar secular groups are allowed:

“Some federal courts have deemed distribution of religious fliers in students’ take-home folders constitutional if the school flier system is akin to a limited public forum. This means if the school allows other outside groups, i.e., soccer clubs, etc., to distribute fliers or other promotional materials, then the school cannot discriminate against religious organizations doing the same. These courts have applied the same rationale used in allowing religious groups and churches access to public school facilities.”

Of schools maintaining neutrality, Gaines wrote in her comment:

“School-run resource fairs and information tables are not neutral public forums. They are curated by the district, and inclusion carries the reasonable perception of endorsement. Parents reasonably assume that programs highlighted in school spaces have been vetted and approved by the district. Excluding a religious organization from those spaces is not discrimination; it is a safeguard.”

Viewed from a constitutional law perspective, Gaines’ position collapses under its own logic. When a school operates a limited public forum, it must apply viewpoint-neutral criteria. Participation under neutral criteria does not constitute school endorsement.

By treating religious exclusion as a “safeguard,” the statement blurs the line between avoiding endorsement and suppressing disfavored speech — which is itself a possible First Amendment violation by a government entity.

Constitutional equilibrium is not achieved by excluding religious viewpoints once secular counterparts are permitted, but by applying neutral criteria consistently to all participants regardless of their views.

As LifeWise’s programming expands nationwide, forcing public school administration to navigate expectations and pressure from religious groups and RTRI opponents alike, school leadership’s obligation to maintain viewpoint neutrality is never dictated by external expectations but always by established legal precedent.

Both SEA’s Gaines and LifeWise’s CEO Joel Penton mischaracterize the meaning of public school neutrality

Just as Gaines’ op-ed mischaracterizes public schools exercising constitutionally required viewpoint neutrality towards religious organizations as a lack of neutrality, LifeWise’s CEO Joel Penton has also mischaracterized what the exercise of neutrality is by public schools.

As LifeWise Exposed has covered before, in its public-facing communications LifeWise almost completely omits constitutionally required public school neutrality from its messaging of what makes RTRI legal.

LifeWise has consistently focused on the incomplete legal requirements of RTRI being “Off school property, private funded, and parent permitted” so much so that it has become the de facto (albeit incomplete) public understanding of RTRI’s legal framework.

As recently as his January 2026 public comment in the Herald, LifeWise’s own legal counsel Dys has incorrectly — some may even say misleadingly — stated that RTRI is “constitutional by design” despite schools not being required to allow it:

“LifeWise operates under a simple and well-settled constitutional framework. With parental permission and direction, students are released during non-instructional time to attend off-campus religious instruction. This ‘released-time’ model has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for more than 70 years. It respects parental rights. And it allows families — rather than bureaucracies — to direct the moral and religious upbringing of their children.

In other words, it is constitutional by design.”

Penton’s book During School Hours mentions the legal requirement of public schools’ neutrality on RTRI programming solely once.

“…neutrality means that schools can neither encourage nor discourage participation in religious activities. The school and district cannot create or require a released time program; it must come from the community.”

However, in his book Penton states public schools not addressing religion demonstrates a lack of neutrality:

“ …silence isn’t neutrality.”

Penton then says schools’ lack of religious education is a discouragement of religion, thus a break from neutrality.

“We’re told, we must be silent on religion. Just religion. When it comes to the spiritual, schools actively discourage, root out, and refuse to speak about it at all.

And yet, sending a child to school for 30 hours a week and teaching him a vast array of details and disciplines but never mentioning the spiritual is, in fact, teaching something about the spiritual — it teaches that it’s unimportant. That it has no place. That it can (and even should) be ignored.

And that is not neutral. That is actively discouraging religion.”

While LifeWise invokes “neutrality” in legal filings but does not emphasize it in public communications

In LifeWise’s filing against Everett, “neutrality” — or the government’s alleged violations thereof — is invoked multiple times:

“Neutrality and equal treatment, rather than animus and targeting, are what the First Amendment requires.” (1)

“…Each of these constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.” (3a)

“Policy 2340P provides that ‘Everett School District shall remain neutral in matters involving religion.’ Not having been updated since 2011, Policy 2340P articulates such neutrality under ‘the three-part test established and used by the U.S. Supreme Court’” (38)

“Despite its professed neutrality toward religion, the District and its agents have invoked LifeWise’s status as a religious organization to deny it equal treatment to other community organizations.” (41)

“The District has excluded LifeWise from the community resource fair because of its religious viewpoint.” (100)

“The picture of a boy praying is not coercive toward any student, does not express any viewpoint on behalf of the District…” (109, 129)

“The District has adopted a policy and practice of refusing to accept Peachjar electronic flyers due to the presence of religious speech that the District deems to be ‘proselytizing,’ thereby discriminating against LifeWise’s speech because of its religious viewpoint.” (110)

“…excluded LifeWise from the community resource fair because of its religious viewpoint.” (120)

“…have discriminated against LifeWise’s speech because of its religious viewpoint.” (130)

“…despite a pretextual viewpoint-neutral justification for excluding LifeWise from the community resource fair and from displaying its hard copy flyers… denied LifeWise access to these forums on the basis of its viewpoints or perceived viewpoints as a Christian organization.” (131)

However, in Dys’ public comment concerning the Everett case “neutrality” is mentioned once with little context provided:

“When neutrality is abandoned, courts exist as the recourse.”

While invoking government neutrality may be legally expedient for LifeWise in the Everett dispute, an explicit focus on required government neutrality may not be generally beneficial to LifeWise’s greater mission as its messaging strategy has emphatically remained silent on the matter.

Viewpoint neutrality is not surrender

To guard against religious incursion into public schools it is essential to have a legally-grounded understanding of what exactly viewpoint neutrality as applied by public schools actually is in practice — and also what it is not.

Neutrality does not mean surrender. Viewpoint neutrality is not an open-door mandate. Schools retain wide authority to define categories of participation and regulate based on purpose, logistics, safety, and operational constraints.

Schools may restrict events to district-affiliated groups, or they may eliminate outside flyer systems entirely. As FFRF correctly notes, “There is no law saying public schools must adopt such a policy!”

This distinction matters.

Districts run into trouble not by setting limits, but by setting them inconsistently. A school that welcomes “community organizations” cannot then exclude a group solely because it is religious.

That is where litigation risk emerges — not from neutrality, but from selective treatment.

In practice, the legally durable path is neither ideological nor dramatic. It is administrative:

• Define participation criteria neutrally

• Apply rules uniformly

• Focus on operations rather than institutional discomfort or external pressure

Should a district wish to avoid conflict entirely, the cleanest solution is structural: narrow or eliminate outside forums’ access to school events and communications.

What courts scrutinize is rarely religion itself. The question is almost always procedural:

Was the policy neutral in application? Was the policy applied consistently across all parties?

Everything else is noise.

Neutrality is not a philosophical compromise; it is how public institutions, including public schools, withstand constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment and equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to .

Across the country, school boards are confronting the spread of LifeWise Academy — an Ohio-based program that removes public school students out of class for off-campus Bible study known as release-time religious instruction (RTRI).

While LifeWise promotes its efforts as “character education,” school districts in Ohio to Kentucky to West Virginia to Washington and beyond have said no to the national RTRI program — when legally permitted — citing concerns over academic disruption, constitutionally required school district neutrality, and the erosion of home rule.

But in Ohio and other states, state-mandated RTRI policies have ultimately turned those local rejections upside down.

LifeWise falsely claims “zero programs lost”

LifeWise has repeatedly claimed publicly again and again they have “zero programs lost.”

However, LifeWise has been rejected and declined by multiple public school districts across multiple states.

Ohio

LifeWise shutters its Eaton, Ohio after school program

An after school LifeWise program operated in Eaton, Ohio from September 2021 until April 2024 when it was shut down.

Read more here about the LifeWise Eaton after school program.

Westerville school board unanimously rejects LifeWise

In October 2024, the Westerville City Schools Board of Education voted 4–0 to rescind its RTRI policy permitting LifeWise Academy to remove public school students for Bible classes.

Westerville school board president Kristy Meyer explained:

“I have significant concerns about the disruptions caused by pulling kids out of school during the middle of the day.”

Westerville resident Dr. Allison Baer, an education professor and parent, questioned the wisdom of devoting school time to private religious instruction.

“I was raised to know that religious teaching belongs in the home, at the church, with your friends, with your family, and those various people that believe the way you do… If this program, and this teaching, is so vital to their Christian life, why isn’t it offered after school, which would help working parents with free after school child care?”

LifeWise CEO Joel Penton spoke, emphasizing parental rights and called the decision “disappointing,” accusing the district of denying “hundreds of students access to Bible-based character lessons during the school day.”

After Westerville school board rescinded its RTRI policy, LifeWise put out a video entitled The Canceling of LifeWise Academy:

Entire Worthington school board votes to rescind LifeWise

In December 2024, Worthington City Schools followed Westerville’s lead, voting 4–0 to rescind its RTRI policy.

School board member Jennifer Best summed up the concern:

“I just see it growing and getting out of hand.”

The district emphasized local control and the need to keep academic time intact, even as LifeWise pressed for reinstatement.

Penton criticized the decision, saying LifeWise was “incredibly disappointed” and urging state lawmakers to mandate access to all districts — a request that, within months, would be fulfilled.

Ohio lawmakers override local school boards’ RTRI policy home rule

In late November 2024, Ohio lawmakers advanced two bills — House Bill 445 and Senate Bill 293, drawing both opposition and support — that would require all public school districts to allow students to be released during the school day for religious instruction.

The legislation effectively nullified home rule decisions in districts like Westerville and Worthington, which had voted to end RTRI programs operating in district, and prevented districts from saying no to RTRI all together.

As Ohio Capital Journal columnist Marilou Johanek reported, the bills “strip districts of the right to refuse questionable programs or to make their own policies about excusing students during school for extracurricular religious instruction.”

The change transformed what was once optional local policy into a mandate allowing RTRI programming in public schools across all of Ohio.

At the center of the lobbying push was LifeWise CEO Joel Penton, identified by Johanek as “the biggest lobbyist campaigning for passage” of the new legislation — part of a broader national effort to expand religious influence in public schools.

Under this new law, districts like Westerville and Worthington — both of which had previously rescinded LifeWise — are now compelled to allow religious release programs if community organizers request them.

Following the “shall” mandate, Worthington would reinstate its RTRI policy 5223 in March 2025.

Kentucky

Warren County public schools reject LifeWise

In August 2025, the Warren County Public Schools Board narrowly voted 3–2 against LifeWise’s proposal to take elementary students to a nearby church for Bible lessons.

The debate came on the heels of Kentucky’s new Senate Bill 19, which permits “moral instruction” programs during school hours. Despite state authorization, Warren County’s board balked at implementing it, citing confusion over the law and concern over precedent.

LifeWise’s local director told reporters the group would return with another proposal.

Oldham County unanimously votes against LifeWise

The Oldham County School Board unanimously voted against LifeWise in October 2025 after hearing from dozens of parents and teachers alerted by Kentucky Citizens for Democracy.

Board member Dominic Cedillo remarked:

“This is a lose-lose situation for the board… we’ve been put in a position to make a decision that’s well outside the scope of our authority.”

Others cited practical disruption. Suzanne Hundley noted that the program would have been “a nightmare” for office staff and “hard for teachers getting kids settled back in or in and out of class.”

Local pastor Rich Gianzaro added bluntly:

“Don’t disrupt instruction time. That’s not what public school is for.”

Notably, LifeWise’s plan to enter Oldham County Schools was first sought without school board approval:

“Michael is the parent who first noticed that the Locust Grove Elementary School Site-Based Decision Making Council had approved LifeWise Academy to start moral, religious-based instruction without parents being surveyed or approval from the Board of Education.”

Kenton County Schools declines LifeWise

November 2025, Kenton County School Board unanimously rejected LifeWise’s proposal to offer RTRI programming in district.

Kenton administration concerns centered on significant “disruption to the core educational process.”

“If the application is approved, and even a single student participates in the moral instruction, the regular, credit-bearing academic instruction for all remaining students in that school must cease during that time block. These non-participating students would then transition to the required ‘noncredit enrichment courses or educational activities.’

It is for this reason — the inevitable disruption to scheduled, core curriculum instruction for students that I recommend the denial of the application submitted by LifeWise Academy.”

Calloway County votes unanimously against LifeWise

Citing interruption and safety concerns, in November 2025 the Calloway County Board of Education voted unanimously against approving LifeWise to provide RTRI programming for its district students.

School board member Mitch Ryan said:

“Even though I think the interruption would be minimal, I do think it would be an interruption… I think that that interruption and the safety and some of the other things that you know — I understand, the law is written so that most, if not all, of the logistics and stuff you all are the ones supposed to organize it, but there is stuff that does fall on us, and that’s a fact, and we would be responsible for that.”

Boone County Schools rejects LifeWise discussion

December 2025, Boone County School Board declined board member Julie Maddox’s motion to discuss LifeWise potentially offering RTRI programming to Boone County students.

At a prior board meeting, veteran district teacher Kim Diehl expressed concerns about disruptions and school personnel being required to manage student transition should LifeWise start a program:

“Then also you’ve added a big field trip to the day… if you’ve ever taught school, it’s very disruptive to have all the commotion, all the excitement, all that going on, and then you have the kids staying back, who you know, are we supposed to remediate them? What are we supposed to do? Keep them in this holding pattern?”

West Virginia

Ohio County says no to LifeWise proposal

August 2025, the Ohio County Board of Education in West Virginia voted 3–2 to reject LifeWise’s proposal to let students leave at lunch for Bible study.

Board President David Croft said the district’s focus should remain on providing a strong public education within the limited time students are at school each week. Superintendent Kim Miller echoed that, citing safety concerns and academic loss.

Local Rabbi Joshua Lief warned that the program would divide the community:

“I agree wholeheartedly with those who made the presentation that faith is worthwhile, and inspiring our children is crucial… I am very concerned, however, particularly from a religious minority, we are not a homogenous community…there, at minimum, would be a division between those who left and came back and those who hadn’t left.”

As covered by the :

Wheeling Free Press

Ohio County BOE rejects Lifewise Academy, released time for religious instruction

WHEELING — On Monday, Aug. 25, the Ohio County Board of Education voted to reject a proposal that would have empowered Superintendent of Ohio County Schools Dr. Kim Miller to draft a rule which, if later adopted by the Board, would permit released time for religious instruction at the county’s 13 schools…

Read more

10 months ago · 9 likes · Justice Hudson

Washington State

Everett: “Saying no” with policy boundaries gets you sued

Everett Public Schools in Washington State shows what may happen when a district sets limits on LifeWise Academy during the school day: legal pressure follows.

As Washington State has no RTRI statute, districts are left responsible for managing religious release time access during school hours in compliance with state and federal law.

In November 2025, LifeWise Academy — backed by national law firms — sent a formal demand letter to Everett, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights and demanding school policy changes by a fixed deadline.

LifeWise alleges Everett’s neutral rules governing third-party access to students, including permission-slip procedures and restrictions meant to protect instructional time and student safety, infringed upon LifeWise’s free exercise of religion.

LifeWise alleges Everett schools have been “targeting LifeWise for unfair treatment” and that a board member’s comments “reflect an animus toward religion that offends our most basic constitutional principles.”

As seen here, LifeWise CEO Joel Penton states LifeWise is unfairly targeted by Everett policy requiring LifeWise students’ parents to sign and send in a weekly permission slip. However, Penton fails to clarify LifeWise is the only third party removing Everett students during the school day on a weekly and/or regular basis.

Per Respect Public Schools-WA:

“To be clear, LifeWise is the ONLY organization removing children from school during the day, and should another organization be permitted to do the same, the same rules apply.”

Unlike public schools in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Everett did not ban or decline LifeWise.

Instead, Everett Public Schools allowed LifeWise to operate and set boundaries via district policy. Despite this, Everett was met with repercussions from LifeWise: diversion of taxpayer-funded resources to legal response, administrative burden, and criticism of a board member’s free speech as protected under the First Amendment — the very same constitutional right under which LifeWise’s religious liberty is enshrined.

Conclusion

Across the country, school districts that have examined LifeWise Academy’s school-day model have raised the same concerns: instructional disruption, student safety, constitutional neutrality, and local control.

In states where districts are still legally permitted to say no, many have done exactly that.

Everett, Washington demonstrates what can happen next. When a district sets boundaries instead of offering blanket access, the response may not be compromise —but pressure, legal threats, or retaliation.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to LifeWise Exposed.

On November 19, 2025, LifeWise Academy — represented by First Liberty Institute and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) — sent a formal demand letter to Washington State-based Everett Public Schools alleging constitutional violations and setting a December 5, 2025 deadline for the district to amend policies it views as infringing upon First Amendment rights.

The letter asserts that Everett schools have been “targeting LifeWise for unfair treatment” and that a board member’s comments “reflect an animus toward religion that offends our most basic constitutional principles.”

LifeWise requests that the district:

“…retract its guidelines for the treatment of ‘religious-related activities or instruction’ and inform District officials of its retraction; (2) within 45 days of the date of this letter, amend Board Policy 2340P sections (C), (G), and (I) to apply without regard to a student’s or organization’s viewpoint or the content of speech; and (3) cease censoring and violating the free speech and free exercise rights of religious community groups including LifeWise, parents, and students.”

This legal escalation follows over a year of discussion in Everett concerning LifeWise’s presence at Emerson Elementary School — which launched January 2025 — particularly its practice of removing students from campus during the school day and the district’s lack of an established policy governing third-party access to children.

LifeWise’s first legal threat to a public school

LifeWise itself is no stranger to litigation; the organization sued a former volunteer for publishing its curriculum online, and petitioned the Supreme Court of Ohio for a religious exemption following a former employee’s civil rights complaint.

While First Liberty has previously spoken of suing school districts over alleged First Amendment violations should they enact policies which prohibit returning LifeWise students from bringing back candy and treats to school, and also issued legal warnings to Ohio-based consultant Neola over RTRI policy recommendations, the demands issued to Everett are the first known legal threat by LifeWise to a public school district.

Reflecting the scale of its projection to serve ~100,000 students nationally during the 2025-2026 schools year, LifeWise’s lead council at BCLP, Barbara Smith Tyson, previously clerked under U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.

On its website FAQ, Everett addresses LifeWise:

“Everett Public Schools does not partner with Lifewise Academy and neither endorses nor opposes this or any religious program. Rather, the district complies with District Policy 2340, which governs Religious-Related Activities and Practices, and adheres to Procedure 2340P. These policies align with both Washington State and federal law, with which the district is required to comply.”

While Everett has said policies, it should be noted that the school district is releasing children to LifeWise while operating without an official release time religious instruction (RTRI) policy and Washington State itself has no RTRI statutes.

LifeWise complains of Nazi comparison, has antisemitic content in its own curriculum

In its letter to Everett schools, LifeWise complains of comparison made to Nazis —

“Other community members have made similarly unhinged comments at Board meetings, even comparing LifeWise to the Nazi party taking ‘trains . . . through [German] towns . . . [that] were filled with broken down souls on their way to the gas chambers.’ These statements are offensive and ridiculous.”

— and has not addressed the dozens of antisemitic teachings in its own curriculum.

LifeWise’s criticism of Everett guidelines

Among other provisions, LifeWise demanded Everett “reverse course” on its guidelines:

1. prohibiting LifeWise from participating in community events and displaying its flyers (while allowing secular groups to participate and display information about their organizations);

2. requiring LifeWise students to conceal any written materials they receive from LifeWise in a sealed envelope in their backpacks (treatment not imposed on students with secular extracurricular materials); and

3. requiring that LifeWise parents follow a needlessly complicated and burdensome permission-slip policy, namely, weekly reauthorization for students to participate in LifeWise (while other parents, whose children participate in secular activities, do not face such a burden).

LifeWise asserts such requirements treat religious programs differently from secular activities and cites them as evidence of unconstitutional disparate treatment. LifeWise has made similar complaints in a legal warning sent to Neola.

Respect Public Schools-WA (RPS-WA) — formed in response to LifeWise entering Washington State by “concerned parents and guardians, clergy, and community members who firmly believe in the separation of church and state for public schools” — has stated as LifeWise is the sole organization removing children during the school day at Everett schools its complaint of religious discrimination is not grounded in fact as no comparable religious or secular program has been denied equal access or treatment.

As revealed by a public records request submitted by RPS-WA, since beginning operation at Emerson Elementary LifeWise’s staff has failed to consistently follow the sign in/sign out procedures and child safety protocols required by Everett school administration.

Within its demand letter, LifeWise also criticizes Everett as being unconstitutionally hostile toward religion — a potential First Amendment violation — as the result of the exercise of free speech by a school board member’s public comment.

School board remarks enter public record

LifeWise’s demand letter highlights public comments made by Everett School Board Director Charles Adkins on July 1, 2025, which LifeWise characterizes as evidence of “religious animus.” In the meeting, Adkins stated:

“My conscience demands that I speak about this… I also believe strongly that what we are allowing LifeWise to do is wrong and is harming our kids. The very kids I was elected to protect.”

Adkins further described LifeWise as “supported by the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 effort to turn our nation into a fascist theocracy” and asserted that the program “cannot be allowed to have access to our kids.” Adkins connected his concerns to his own experience at a federal Native American boarding school:

“And as someone who attended one of the last remaining boarding schools, still run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I’m all too familiar with the dark history that religious education has in this country with its treatment of kids of color, of native kids, of LGBT kids. I’m all too familiar with the attempts in the past and present by the white Christian majority to snuff out the cultures, religion, and language of native kids and other kids of color. We cannot allow this religious brainwashing and bullying of non-Christian and LGBT kids to take place when we can do something to stop it. We must do everything we possibly can to protect our kids.”

In September 2025, the Heritage Foundation recognized LifeWise Academy with an Innovation Award.

Local reporting documents disruption and policy gaps

In April 2025, HeraldNet provided additional context about how LifeWise operates in Everett. The program uses a branded red bus to transport students during recess and lunch, and the bus is a visible presence at Emerson Elementary. The newspaper reported, “Every Tuesday and Wednesday, the red bus comes back to Emerson Elementary” to transport children to an off-campus site for Bible instruction.

Some parents described impacts on the school day. One parent said that when children return from LifeWise, “kids can’t shut up for the rest of the day. That’s all they talk about.”

Another parent reported that their child experiences anxiety on days when LifeWise students wear matching shirts, noting, “Maybe it doesn’t rise to the level of bullying… But she knows Wednesdays.”

Local clergy also raised constitutional and policy considerations. Rabbi Brett Weisman characterized LifeWise’s school-day model as “trying to find a loophole in the separation of church and state,” and Rev. Carol Jensen stated she viewed the program within a broader political movement to instill Christian values in public institutions.

Jennifer Phillips McLellan, a parent at Everett and founding member of RPS-WA, questioned why LifeWise targets public schools:

“Why is it public school? Why is it elementary school? …Because they’re vulnerable and impressionable.”

Conclusion

The events in Everett illustrate a conflict between community calls for clearer safety and procedural rules, the district’s attempts to standardize its policies, and LifeWise Academy’s position that these changes constitute unlawful discrimination against religious expression. The demand letter signals a potential legal confrontation that may influence how Washington school districts — and public schools nationally — regulate released time religious programs and manage third-party access to students during the school day.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to LifeWise Exposed.

LifeWise Academy publicly markets itself as “nondenominational” and “interdenominational.” In reality, its curriculum is licensed directly from Lifeway Christian Resources, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest Protestant denomination in the United States after the Roman Catholic Church, and one with deeply specific conservative evangelical theological commitments.

While much has been written about LifeWise promoting anti-LGBTQ views, its curriculum also contains extensive anti-Jewish framing that raises serious concerns about the messages being delivered to young, impressionable public school children during release time religious instruction (RTRI).

Detailed below, antisemitic content in LifeWise’s curriculum specifically talks about Jews:

• Starting riots at least 2 times

• Stoning others at least 11 times

• Killing or wanting to kill others at least 32 times

• Wanting or plotting to kill Paul at least 23 times

• …and wanting or being responsible for killing Jesus at least 14 times

LifeWise curriculum is rife with systemic antisemitic narratives

Across elementary and middle school lessons, the LifeWise curriculum repeatedly portrays —

• “The Jews”

• “Jewish people”

• “Jewish leaders”

• “a group of Jews”

— as a collective that stones, riots, plots, desires to kill, tries to kill, murders, refuses to believe, spreads lies, and opposes God’s purposes.

These depictions are not isolated. They are systematic, constant, and often written multiple times within the same lesson without any nuance or historical context. In many lessons, “the Jews” function as the primary antagonists, while the Romans are framed as protectors or neutral arbiters.

This pattern directly intersects with — and reinforces — classic historical Christian anti-Judaism, the theological root of modern antisemitism.

Intersection with classic antisemitic tropes

LifeWise’s curriculum reinforces multiple long standing antisemitic tropes, including:

The “collective guilt” trope

Using “the Jews” as a single undifferentiated group holds all Jews — across time and place — responsible for the actions of a few, especially in ancient religious narratives. It erases individual identity and treats Jewish people as a single, perpetually guilty group, fueling prejudice and persecution for centuries and into the modern era.

The “deceitful Jew” trope

Depicting Jews as inherently dishonest, manipulative, or scheming. Rooted in medieval Christian polemics, it falsely casts Jewish people as conspirators who mislead or deceive others for personal or communal gain.

The “greedy Jew” trope

Centuries-old antisemitic stereotype portraying Jews as obsessed with money or financial control. It arose from medieval restrictions that forced Jews into moneylending, then was weaponized to depict Jews as manipulative or economically threatening.

The “jealous Jew” trope

Antisemitic stereotype portraying Jews as envious of others’ spiritual, social, or religious status. Historically rooted in Christian polemics, it cast Jews as resentful of Jesus, early Christians, or non-Jews — framing Jewish hostility as driven by irrational jealousy rather than legitimate disagreement or in historically rooted context.

The “Jews as enemies of God” trope

An antisemitic narrative portraying Jewish people as fundamentally opposed to God’s will or hostile to divine truth. Emerging from early Christian polemics, it framed Jews as spiritually blind, rebellious, or rejected by God — fueling centuries of persecution by casting Judaism itself as against the divine.

The “murderous Jew” trope

Stereotype portraying Jews as inherently violent or inclined to kill prophets, Christians, or outsiders. Rooted in medieval Christian accusations — especially the false claim that Jews were collectively responsible for killing Jesus — it has historically fueled accusations of blood libel, persecution, and violence against Jewish communities.

Because these are taught to very young children without historical framing, without clarification, and without theological nuance, LifeWise’s curriculum effectively revives and amplifies anti-Jewish stereotypes that have been used for centuries to justify exclusion, discrimination, violence, and genocide against Jewish people.

Children cannot distinguish between ancient biblical Jews vs. modern Jews

LifeWise’s primary curriculum targets children, specifically the 4-14 window. Younger elementary-aged children at this developmental stage:

• do not possess the abstract-reasoning skills to differentiate between ancient ethnic-religious groups from modern Jewish people

• do not understand historical context

• are extremely impressionable

• tend to generalize group labels

• and interpret stories literally

When a program repeatedly teaches children and reinforces —

• “the Jews planned to kill Paul”

• “the Jews were jealous”

• “the Jews stoned Stephen”

• “the Jews started a riot”

• “the Jews lied to authorities”

• “the Jews killed Jesus”

— those children absorb the message as “Jews are violent, jealous, and dangerous.”

This is how anti-Jewish stereotypes are formed — and why historians describe historical Christian anti-Judaism as the seedbed of modern antisemitism.

Antisemitic content in LifeWise curriculum

Below is a detailed — but not exhaustive — list of antisemitic content found within LifeWise’s Bible study curriculum taught to children on a weekly basis when removed from public school for RTRI.

Note that LifeWise’s antisemitic curriculum quotes are grouped by the lesson source.

Want to check out the LifeWise curriculum yourself? Visit lifewisetruth.com.

Middle School Special Lessons Combined

Lesson 2:

“The Jews clearly understood that Jesus was making Himself equal with God because they tried to kill Him in response (John 5:18).”

“In Jesus’ time, foreign empires still oppressed the people, and the Jews looked down on the people of Galilee because of their frequent interactions with Gentiles.”

Lesson 5:

“Paul then used his own experiences to show the power of the resurrection. Paul was not one of Jesus’ disciples before His crucifixion. He was a Pharisee, a group of Jewish religious leaders who were partly responsible for Jesus’ death.”

Special Lessons Combined

Lesson 6:

“The Pharisees and other Jews in Jerusalem did not like Jesus. He didn’t play by their rules (Mt. 12:1-14), He claimed to be God (Jn.8:58-59,10:22-33) and He extended salvation beyond the Jewish people (Lk. 4:29). So, they plotted several times how they might kill Him.”

“Second, Jesus was betrayed and arrested even though He did nothing wrong. The Jews tried to find a legitimate reason to kill Jesus, but they couldn’t find one…”

Lesson 7:

“What relative of Paul’s told the soldiers about the Jews’ plan to kill Paul?”

Year Two

Lesson 28:

“Plants, animals and people were all made to grow. They start out small and become mature. But in the book of Judges, God’s people did not grow. They made the same mistakes over and over. God doesn’t want us to be stuck in a sin cycle like the Israelites. So He sent Jesus. Jesus saves us from our sin and gives us His Holy Spirit so we can stop making the same mistakes and start to grow. The Bible says that, everyday we can think and act more like Him until, one day, we will be just like Jesus.”

“Did this game achieve anything? Even though God used the judges to rescue His people when they cried out to Him, the Israelites kept making the same mistakes. They were going around and around in circles never learning from their mistakes.”

Lesson 30:

“Judges 6 starts out in a familiar way: ‘The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of the Lord’ The period of Judges was not a good time for the Israelites. Their cycle of sin, bondage, deliverance and peace clearly showed they had not learned from their past mistakes.”

Lesson 31:

“We’ve been learning about the Israelites during the time of the judges. What cycle did they fall back into over and over? (The cycle of sin.)”

Year Three

Lesson 69:

“At the time Jesus was on Earth, the social food chain went like this: Jews don’t talk to Samaritans. The strife between the two groups stretched back hundreds of years, to the Assyrian destruction of Israel.”

“The Jews who returned home from exile to rebuild God’s temple in Jerusalem rejected this new way of life. They were dedicated to obeying and worshiping God, and they didn’t agree with the Samaritans’ practices. The Samaritans opposed the Jews’ efforts to reestablish their nation. In time, the Jews’ hate for the Samaritans grew—so much so, that a Jew traveling from Judea to Galilee would take a longer route to travel around Samaria rather than through it.”

“Jesus broke down barriers when He traveled to Galilee by way of Samaria. Even more surprising, Jesus stopped at a well around noon and asked a Samaritan woman for a drink. Jewish men did not speak to women in public.”

“In today’s story, Jesus had another unusual meeting, this time with someone most Jewish men wouldn’t talk to. It was against the social rules of the time for a Jewish man to speak to a woman in public, but it wasn’t against God’s rules, so Jesus did. Not only this, but the woman was a Samaritan—a half-Jew race hated by most Jews. But Jesus didn’t hate her. He showed her God’s love.”

“Our game was boys against girls. In today’s Bible story, Jesus stopped and talked to a woman from Samaria. Jewish men did not speak to women in public, but Jesus was not like other Jews. Jesus loves everyone. We’ll find out what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman.”

“Even though Jesus was a Jew, He was kind to the Samaritan woman. Jesus offers salvation to anyone who will trust in Him as Lord and Savior.”

Lesson 71:

“Jesus was traveling through Jericho, where a man named Zacchaeus lived. Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector, and he was very rich. Zacchaeus was in charge of collecting taxes from the Jewish people in Jericho for the Roman government. Many Jews did not like tax collectors because they were often dishonest.”

Year Four

Lesson 74:

“Then, the expert on the law asked, ‘Who is is my neighbor?’ Rather than give a list of whom the man should love, Jesus responded with a parable. Jesus’ story about the Good Samaritan surprised the people who heard it. The priest and Levite—men dedicated to serving God neglected to help the man in need. By showing mercy, the Samaritan (whom Jews considered a social outcast) proved to be a neighbor to the man in need. Jesus told the lawyer, ‘Go and do the same.’”

“Over time, other foreign people settled among God’s people, and they began to marry each other. Their bloodlines, their beliefs about God and their ways of living mixed together. These people became known as Samaritans. Even after the exile, most Jews wanted nothing to do with Samaritans because they felt the Samaritans had disobeyed God’s laws.”

Lesson 75:

“Ask the class: Whom do you want for a friend? Whom does God like more? Jesus taught that God loves everyone no matter what. Sometimes, His people, the Jews, would get upset and think they were better than the ‘sinners,’ but today we’ll hear three stories that Jesus told about God’s love for people who are lost and don’t know the way to Heaven.”

Lesson 81:

“Jesus had enemies. In the midst of His public ministry, the Jewish religious leaders began plotting to kill Him (Mk. 3:6).”

Lesson 86:

“The Pharisees and other Jews in Jerusalem did not like Jesus. He didn’t play by their rules (Matt. 12:1-14), He claimed to be God (John 8:58-59; 10:22-33), and He extended salvation beyond the Jewish people (Luke 4:29). So, they plotted several times how they might kill Him.”

“Jesus was betrayed and arrested even though He did nothing wrong. The Jews tried to find a legitimate reason to kill Jesus, but they couldn’t find one (Matt. 26:59-60).”

Lesson 89:

“A few days had passed since Jesus was arrested, beaten and crucified. His followers were afraid and confused. They met together in a house, locking the doors because they were afraid of the Jews. Would the Jews do to them what they had done to Jesus?”

“On the first day of the week, in the evening, the disciples gathered together in a house. They locked the doors because they were afraid of the Jews. They didn’t want to be killed like Jesus had been killed.”

Lesson 91:

“‘Lord, are You giving the kingdom back to Israel now?’ the disciples asked. God was with His people—the Jews—but they looked Weak. The Romans ruled over them. The Jewish people wanted to have power over other nations.”

Lesson 94:

“As Stephen preached, he showed how the Old Testament pointed to a coming Savior and how that Savior was Jesus. Stephen pointed out that the Jews’ ancestors had rejected God’s prophets. And they were just like their fathers: they rejected the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, Not only did they reject Jesus, they killed Him!”

“The Jewish leaders rushed at Stephen. Stephen looked into Heaven. He saw God’s glory, and Jesus was standing at God’s right hand. The Jews forced Stephen out of the city, and they stoned him.”

“Stephen told them these stories to explain that Jesus was the Messiah God had promised! But just like their ancestors rejected and killed the prophets in the Old Testament, these Jewish leaders had rejected Jesus and murdered Him!”

“The Jewish leaders screamed at the top of their lungs. They covered their ears and rushed at Stephen. They threw Stephen out of the city and began to throw stones at him. As they were stoning him, Stephen called out, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ Then, Stephen knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’ After saying this, Stephen died.”

“Stephen accused the Jewish leaders of rejecting Jesus, the Messiah, and murdering Him. (True, Acts 7:52)”

“The Jewish people put Stephen in prison. (False; they threw him out of the city and threw stones at him, Acts 7:58)”

“The Jewish leaders were angry, and they stoned Stephen.”

“The Jewish leaders threw stones at Stephen until he died. Stephen was killed because he was a Christian.”

Year Five

Lesson 97:

“The Jews did not like Saul’s message, so they planned to kill him. Saul heard what the Jews wanted to do, so one night he left the city. The disciples helped Saul escape by lowering him down the city wall in a basket.”

“How did believers help Saul escape when the Jews were planning to kill him?”

Lesson 98:

“In some places, the Jews made plans to kill Paul.”

“Paul and Barnabus left Cyprus and went on to Pisidian Antioch. They shared the good news about Jesus in the Jewish synagogue on the Sabbath. Many people believed, and the whole city came to listen to them on the next Sabbath. The Jewish leaders saw this, were filled with jealousy and rejected the message. So, Paul and Barnabus told the Gentiles in Antioch about Jesus. The Gentiles accepted the good news with joy. God’s Word spread throughout the entire area, but the Jewish leaders mistreated them because of their message and drove them out of Pisidian Antioch.”

“Next, God sent Paul and Barnabus to Iconium. They shared the gospel in the Jewish synagogue. A great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. Other Jews refused to believe and turned the Gentiles against the missionaries, so Paul and Barnabus stayed in Iconium a long time. They spoke boldly about Jesus and did many miraculous signs and wonders through God’s power. When they learned that the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles planned to stone them, they left Iconium to share the good news in other cities nearby.”

“Then, some Jewish leaders showed up from Pisidian Antioch, and Iconium and caused trouble so that the people in Lystra turned against Paul and Barnabas, too. They threw stones at Paul and dragged him out of the city. They thought he was dead, but when the believers in Lystra gathered around Paul, he got up.”

“What did the Jews from Pisidian Antioch, and Iconium do to Paul?
Encouraged the people to stone Paul, Acts 14:19”

Lesson 99:

“The Jews in Lystra tried to stop Paul from preaching. What hard things did Paul and Barnabas go through? (Some people treated them unkindly because of their message, the crowd tried to kill Paul by stoning him and they were continually forced to leave towns.)”

Lesson 101:

“Before long, Jews in the city became jealous and forced Paul and Silas out of the city. Even though the Jews opposed Paul’s preaching, the number of believers in Thessalonica grew and the church there was established.”

“Paul made his way through Berea, where people heard the gospel and believed. The Jews from Thessalonica followed him and caused trouble, so Paul went to Athens.”

“The Jewish leaders in Thessalonica heard that Paul was preaching in Berea, so they came and turned the crowds against Paul. The Berean church sent Paul to the city of Athens, while Silas and Timothy stayed to teach the Bereans more about Jesus.”

“How did the Jewish leaders make trouble for Christians in Thessalonica?
They started a riot in the city, Acts 16:5”

Lesson 102:

“After the riot, Paul sent for the believers, encouraged them and said goodbye. He traveled to the churches in Macedonia and strengthened them. He spent three months in Greece until the Jews there threatened to hurt him.”

“What did the Jews from Antioch and Iconium do to Paul? (Stoned him and dragged him out of town)”

Lesson 103:

“Peter, one of Jesus’ original disciples, had grown up in a culture where the Jews believed that God only cared about them, not the Gentiles. Because of this, most of the Jews looked down on the Gentiles and refused to even associate with them. Jews believed Gentiles were unclean; Gentiles didn’t live the right way to please God. Any Jew who did associate with Gentiles did so at the risk of being ridiculed by his own people.”

“How did the Jews treat the Gentiles?
They refused to be around them”

“Peter felt pressure to do certain things when he was around what group of people?"
Jews”

Lesson 111:

“As Paul’s third missionary journey came to an end, a prophet named Agabus warned him that the Jews would seize him in Jerusalem and hand him over to the Gentiles (see Acts 21:10-11). But Paul did not hesitate. He returned to Jerusalem and was seized by a group of Jews who wanted to kill him because he taught things contrary to their law.”

“In the morning, a group of Jews got together and made a plan to kill Paul. They promised to not eat or drink until Paul was dead. These men told the Jewish leaders about their plan. Paul’s nephew overheard this evil plan. He hurried to tell Paul what was going on. Paul told his nephew to report it to the commander.”

“Who tried to have Paul killed?
Jewish leaders from Asia, Acts 24:27-30”

“Who made a plan to kill Paul?
A group of Jews, Acts 28:12”

“Clue #2: I overheard the Jews plotting to kill Paul, so I told the commander of the army to protect him. (Paul’s nephew)”

“Clue #4: I wanted to kill Paul. He stood before me telling us about Jesus, but I don’t believe that Jesus is really God’s own Son. (Jews/religious leader)”

“A group of 40 Jews vowed not to go swimming until they had killed Paul. (False; not to eat or drink, Acts23:12>43)”

Lesson 112:

“The Jewish leaders had brought serious charges against him, so Paul now stood before Felix, the governor. Felix listened to Paul’s defense but delayed a ruling. He met with Paul off and on for two years. When his time as governor ended, Felix left Paul in prison because he did not want to upset the Jews.”

“During our last class, we learned that the Jewish leaders tried to find away to kill Paul by spreading lies about him. Does anyone remember why? (They didn’t want Paul to talk about Jesus.) Paul was arrested by Roman soldiers to keep him safe from the Jews. What message did God give Paul while he was in prison? (To have courage because Paul would keep sharing about Jesus.) What plan did some Jewish men come up with? (To kill Paul.)”

“Paul had narrowly escaped death in Jerusalem. The Jews planned to kill Paul, but the Roman soldiers took him away to Caesarea, where he would be safe. However, Paul was still a prisoner. The Roman leaders wanted to figure out why the Jews hated Paul so much. So, Paul met with rulers to try to explain what was going on.”

“The new governor was named Festus. He traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Jewish leaders. The Jewish leaders asked Festus to bring Paul to Jerusalem. They were still planning to attack Paul and kill him. But Festus wanted Paul to stay in Caesarea. He invited some of it the Jewish leaders to go with him to see Paul.”

“Why did the Jews want Festus to bring Paul to Jerusalem?
So they could kill him, Acts 25:2-3”

“The Jews wanted Festus to bring Paul to Jerusalem so they could kill him. (True, Acts 25:2-3)”

Lesson 113:

“Paul was in Roman custody because of unfounded accusations brought against him by the Jews.”

“The Bible tells the story of how God rescues sinners through His Son, Jesus. In the New Testament, we find the story of Paul, a believer who helped spread the gospel—the good news about Jesus. Paul boldly shared Jesus, but the Jewish people tried to kill him because they didn’t want others to turn from the Jewish religion to Jesus. Who found out about their plan,and told the Roman soldiers? (Paul’s nephew.) Paul spoke to many rulers of the land. What did Paul share with them?(The good news.) Why didn’t they release Paul from prison? (To please the Jews.)”

Lesson 114:

“We have learned about some of Paul’s most difficult experiences. Paul obeyed God’s call to tell people about Jesus, but the Jews planned to kill him.”

“Paul was living as a prisoner in Rome. He had done nothing wrong, but the Jewish leaders had tried to kill him because he believed and taught that Jesus had risen from the dead.”

Final word (for now)

LifeWise’s curriculum does not merely reflect outdated biblical storytelling — it systematically revives classic anti-Jewish stereotypes and presents them to young children as unquestioned truth.

With no historical framing and repeated depictions of “the Jews” as violent, jealous, or murderous, LifeWise teaches young children dangerous tropes that have fueled antisemitism for centuries.

Delivered during school hours to impressionable students, these lessons blur ancient conflicts into modern prejudice, potentially creating a weekly pipeline teaching animosity under the guise of Bible study rather than age-appropriate understanding.

Public schools constitutionally must remain neutral toward any RTRI program.

First Liberty attorney Holly Randall even suggests LifeWise has a right to access public schools — but that’s NOT true.

The U.S. Supreme Court only ruled that schools MAY allow RTRI during school hours — NOT that they must. Big difference.

Randall also alludes to “helping” families whose school district will not permit RTRI — is this a foreshadowing of legal action against public schools which decline RTRI programs?

This would not be the first time First Liberty has threatened legal action against school districts on behalf of LifeWise for enacting policies prohibiting candies and goodies given to kids during RTRI from being bought back into schools.

In a remarkable twist of transparency, LifeWise Academy’s own public data has become the foundation of the most comprehensive accountability tool tracking its rapid national expansion. The (RPS) map takes information directly from LifeWise’s website — data that they themselves publish — and uses it to show, in real time, how far their Release-Time Religious Instruction (RTRI) programs have penetrated into America’s public school system.

The RPS map is LifeWise’s own data, mapped for public visibility and oversight.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to LifeWise Exposed.

RPS map born tracking LifeWise, felony legal threats from LifeWise corporate follow

Developed and owned by Keith Comer, the RPS map was born out of curiosity and civic engagement; Comer tells the story of his map here.

In 2024, Comer began researching HB 445, a bill that would force every school district to adopt policies allowing RTRI programs — by updating language in the current RTRI law from “may” to “shall” — thus making it easier for LifeWise to expand.

Curious how widespread LifeWise already was, Comer scraped publicly available data from LifeWise’s website, mapping petitions and launch steps across the United States utilizing Google Maps data.

In April 2024, Comer received a cease-and-desist letter from LifeWise’s attorney at Ashbrook Byrne Kresge & Flowers stating the organization’s copyrighted assets and intellectual property were violated by Comer’s RPS map; Comer was threatened with felony prosecution unless he deleted the map.

On the same day, the Hilliard, Ohio Police report taken by Officer Toczek concluded the opposite:

“At this point in time I do not believe a crime has occurred given that all the information being shared by [redacted] on his website is publicly available from LifeWise.”

In Hilliard, OH police report LifeWise COO Steve Clifton explains usefulness of RPS map

In the same police report filed with Hilliard, Ohio police taken by Officer Toczek, LifeWise COO and CFO Steve Clifton explained the value of the RPS map.

“…created a way for people that don’t like their organization to easily find every location approach the local Lifewise program. Clifton stated the information is publicly available but without the map [redacted] created you would have to look at 13,000 individual pages to find the information.”

In the same police report, Clifton also references a “hate group” that had tripled in size in opposition to LifeWise.

LifeWise public 10-Step RTRI data drives RPS map

LifeWise’s website — which tracks each local LifeWise program’s petition, progress, and 10-step launch process — is built directly upon public National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data. NCES is the principal federal agency responsible for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on education in the United States.

Notably, NCES data is literally baked into LifeWise’s website taxonomy, every local LifeWise program’s landing page uses the district’s NCES ID in the landing page URL.

The RPS map simply reverses the direction of that transparency, using LifeWise’s own publicly available data — as permitted under Fair Use doctrine — to track, visualize, and document LifeWise’s entry into public education during school hours.

In short: First LifeWise built its public RTRI program expansion dataset, then Comer developed the RPS map to publicly monitor and track LifeWise’s expansion into public schools.

A visual mirror and interactive platform built on LifeWise’s own 10-Step RTRI tracking system

The RPS Map is a direct data mirror of LifeWise’s public tracking on its website. Every district’s progress — from “interested community” to “active during-school program” — is displayed as LifeWise reports it.

The map’s color-coded step system visually matches LifeWise’s own 10-step pipeline:

⬜ Gray: Step 0 — No known LifeWise activity
🟨 Yellow: Steps 1–3 Interest Phrase — Early petition and community formation
🟧 Orange: Steps 4–6 Planning Phase — Organizing and school board approval
🟥 Red: Steps 7–9 Execution Phase — Approved program pending, preparing to launch
🟪 Purple: Step 10 Launch Phrase— Active during-school LifeWise RTRI programs

Each color indicates where each potential LifeWise RTRI program is, and what it’s next step will be.

LifeWise Academy 10-Step RTRI program launch process

1. Collect 50 Signatures: LifeWise requires gathering at least 50 online “interest list” signatures. LifeWise states signatures should be locally-based, but LifeWise CEO Joel Penton has stated signatures can be “plucked out of the air” from “anyone with a pulse.”

2. Watch a Kickoff Meeting: After reaching 50 signatures, LifeWise invites signers to a virtual kickoff meeting led by local hosts and LifeWise staff, where the 10-step process, fundraising goals, and steering committee formation are introduced.

3. Raise $500: Communities raise a minimum of $500 — often during or soon after the kickoff meeting—to prove local engagement and the financial ability to move forward. Local LifeWise programs are fully self-supporting with no direct financial support from LifeWise corporate.

4. Form a Steering Committee: A 3–9 member steering committee, drawn from at least three churches approved by LifeWise, is established to represent the program and coordinate next steps.

5. Draft a Plan: The committee develops a logistical plan detailing location, schedule, and transportation for RTRI classes, which are usually held in nearby churches or offsite facilities in proximity to the targeted school(s).

6. Obtain School Board Approval: Finalized plan is presented to the school district or superintendent for authorization, often with no or limited public input; approval letters are issued without clear disclosure of which class times or subjects will be missed.

7. Recruit Your Team: The group recruits or hires a director, teachers, and volunteers to run the program, transitioning from the steering committee to a formal, long term local board.

8. Train Your Team: All staff complete training and background checks; directors and teachers receive specialized LifeWise instruction in person or online.

9. Execute the Plan: Preparations begin for launch — securing space, transportation, and enrollment—culminating local LifeWise program’s operational.

10. Launch Live LifeWise RTRI Program: The program officially opens, offering during-school religious classes to participating students under the district’s release-time policy.

Stay one step ahead

The most powerful feature of the RPS map isn’t just all-in-one-place visibility — it’s foresight. Because LifeWise’s petition process and 10-step system are publicly accessible, the RPS map enables users to proactively stay ahead of LifeWise activity at the school, district, regional, or state level.

By tracking where programs are in Steps 3–6, educators, community members, parents, and the media can anticipate when a community might be on the verge of approving a LifeWise program — and act before it becomes approved.

Users can also highlight individual states, greying out the rest of the country for clearer focus during presentations, research, or reporting.

13,000 districts, 128,000 public schools

Just like on LifeWise’s find your school search page, every single public school district in the United States is represented on the RPS map — covering over ~128,000 schools across ~13,000 districts. This complete national dataset allows users to zoom out for a bird’s-eye view or zoom in to analyze local patterns in detail.

Additional layered data for critical context

LifeWise’s own data only shows where they’re expanding. The RPS map adds what they leave out: context. Overlaid onto the RPS map are additional data layers that make the picture sharper and more revealing:

• District poverty levels — revealing possible socioeconomic patterns in expansion

• Non-white student enrollment — highlighting demographic disparities in expansion

• State RTRI laws — color-coded by legal category:

  • 🟦 Navy Blue: “Shall Allow” — State law requires schools to permit RTRI if requested

  • 🩵 Light Blue: “May Allow” — State law allows, but does not require, schools to approve RTRI programs

  • ⬜ Gray: No RTRI Law — State has no statute authorizing RTRI

Together, these layers turn the RPS map into not just a tracker — but a state policy and demographics visualization tool.

District and school-level RPS map tracking pages

Each school district on the RPS map has its own dedicated landing page, providing:

• District and/or school’s current LifeWise step, program status, with timestamp

• A direct link to LifeWise’s official petition page for that district

  • Number of petition signatures

• Link to the district’s NCES profile, which includes:

  • School or district’s name, address, grade span, and student/teacher ratio

  • Up-to-date data on student enrollment, demographics, and poverty levels

  • Links to the district’s official website and state education resources

• If available:

  • LifeWise enrollment

  • Associated/sponsoring organization(s)

  • Local LifeWise program personnel

  • School district policy and state law

This interconnected structure makes the RPS map a direct bridge between federal data, LifeWise’s local RTRI program tracking system, and the communities being impacted — a fully transparent, data-driven ecosystem.

View supporters, donors, active LifeWise locations

As available, active LifeWise local RTRI programs, donors, and churches can be filtered on the RPS map.

Not just a map: Respect Public Schools’ tools

The Respect Public Schools platform goes far beyond mapping LifeWise’s reach — it exposes the networks, data, and misinformation driving their expansion.

The RPS business directory identifies organizations and churches backing LifeWise programs. The knowledge base provides clear, sourced information on RTRI law and events.

The RPS program statistics dashboard tracks LifeWise’s growth by step and demographics; state-specific dashboards are also available.

RPS challenges LifeWise’s claims that RTRI participation “improves attendance” — data shows no evidence of such benefit.

The RPS YouTube channel and Facebook page share insights, video briefings, and real-time updates.

Fair Use and civic accountability

Under the Fair Use doctrine, RPS repurposes LifeWise’s public data for commentary, research, and education — all purposes protected under United States law.

Where LifeWise uses NCES data as a framework to expand religious instruction into public schools during, the RPS map uses LifeWise’s public data to alert and inform communities, and protect constitutionally required public school neutrality

It’s not just data visualization — it’s public accountability mapped against targeted public schools.

Explore the Respect Public Schools map, sound the alarm

Visit RespectPublicSchools.com to explore the fully interactive local LifeWise RTRI program tracking map.

Zoom in on your state, click your district, and see exactly where LifeWise stands — and where they’re headed next.

Every color, every pin, every link is the beginning of a story of how LifeWise sought entry into a public school through the influence of people, organizations, and money.

LifeWise Academy wrote the playbook, a proven 10-step process for public school entry — Respect Public Schools mapped the defense and counter-strategy.

Previously in Part 1 of multi-part Lies By Omission During School Hours series, we covered how LifeWise Academy’s oft-repeated legal formula “off school property, privately funded, and parent permitted” became the legal de facto public understanding of religious release-time instruction (RTRI) while omitting the constitutional requirement of public school neutrality.

Part 2 of Lies By Omission During School Hours details how the legal requirements of public school neutrality were established, what it is, and how LifeWise largely omits it.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to LifeWise Exposed.

The part of RTRI law LifeWise doesn’t talk about: Public school neutrality

On the legality of RTRI, LifeWise’s media-focused messaging solely focuses on its “legal holy trinity” — off-campus, privately funded, parent permitted — while omitting the constitutional requirement public schools remain strictly neutral toward religion.

That neutrality standard originates directly from two cases heard at the Supreme Court of the United States that would ultimately define the legality of RTRI — of which LifeWise cites Zorach v. Clauson (1952) ad nauseum.

As seen below (clipped section here), and in Part 1 of this series, LifeWise cites the Zorach RTRI legal requirements of “off school property, privately funded, and parent permitted” repeatedly, but the constitutional requirement of public school neutrality is consistently left out.

In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the Court struck down a program allowing clergy to teach religion inside public schools during the school day, ruling that using tax-supported property and compulsory attendance time for religious purposes violated the Establishment Clause — in other words, a violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

McCollum established public institutions — including public schools — cannot lend their authority, facilities, resources, or compulsory attendance to advance religious instruction.

“To hold that a state cannot, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not, as counsel urge, manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. A manifestation of such hostility would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment’s guaranty of the free exercise of religion. For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.”

Four years later, Zorach v. Clauson (1952) clarified further where the boundary between church and state lies. The Court upheld New York City’s “release-time” program because instruction occurred off school grounds, used no public funds, and involved no public employees or endorsement.

“Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person.”

Public schools were to do no more, and no less, than work with religious groups operationally to fit RTRI programming into the school day.

“…public schools do no more than accommodate their schedules to a program of outside religious instruction.”

In the Zorach decision, the Court addressed in no uncertain terms the constitutional requirement of public school neutrality not just once —

“The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory.”

— but twice.

“The school authorities are neutral in this regard, and do no more than release students whose parents so request.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State on RTRI legal requirements

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) outlines the minimum RTRI legal safeguards per Zorach:

• Release time classes cannot occur on school property

• School resources, including transportation, cannot be used to promote or facilitate release time classes

• School staff and officials cannot push, encourage, or promote release time classes

• School staff and officials cannot participate in or review student work produced in release time classes

• Parental consent is required to attend release time

• Students cannot be punished for refusing to attend

As seen, public school influence and institutional power as a government entity must remain neutral toward RTRI programming.

LifeWise: ‘Public school neutrality’ mentioned four times, ‘legal holy trinity’ ad infinitum

LifeWise’s three-part interpretation of RTRI law is repeatedly used in program pitches, becoming the de facto — but legally insufficient — public understanding of RTRI.

Upon examination, public school neutrality is addressed within publicly-facing LifeWise content four times.

LifeWise’s website contains no information relating to public schools’ constitutionally required neutral stance or neutrality toward RTRI programming.

LifeWise’s landing page for educators repeats their incomplete RTRI “legal holy trinity,” but public school neutrality as a legal requirement is not presented.

“LifeWise is keenly aware of the need to keep public and religious institutions separate. We are diligent to adhere to relevant laws and policies, namely the maintenance of a program that is (1) privately funded, (2) off school property and (3) inclusive of only students with parental permission.”

In a downloadable pdf guide entitled What Educators Need to Know About the Groundbreaking Released Time Program, LifeWise prominently features its incomplete three-part interpretation of RTRI law on page 2.

In the same downloadable guide, public school neutrality is referenced on page 9:

“While public schools cannot legally endorse any religious teaching or denomination, cooperating with a community-led RTRI program could provide incentive for these families to keep their students and influence in the public schools.”

In the FAQ on page 11:

“Legally, schools may not use class time or assemblies during the school day to promote released time programs.”

In DO’s and DON’TS on page 13:

In his book During School Hours, LifeWise CEO Joel Penton addresses legally required public school neutrality once.

“…neutrality means that schools can neither encourage nor discourage participation in religious activities. The school and district cannot create or require a released time program; it must come from the community.”

LifeWise CEO Joel Penton redefines the meaning of “neutrality”

In During School Hours, Penton advances a novel but legally inaccurate definition of neutrality.

In chapter four “An Obvious Choice: WHY Religious Education Creates Neutrality,” Penton argues that RTRI programming creates “true neutrality,” claiming that a lack of religious instruction in public schools “isn’t neutrality.”

“ …silence isn’t neutrality.”

Penton goes on to say public schools’ lack of religious education is a discouragement of religion.

“We’re told, we must be silent on religion. Just religion. When it comes to the spiritual, schools actively discourage, root out, and refuse to speak about it at all.

And yet, sending a child to school for 30 hours a week and teaching him a vast array of details and disciplines but never mentioning the spiritual is, in fact, teaching something about the spiritual—it teaches that it’s unimportant. That it has no place. That it can (and even should) be ignored.

And that is not neutral. That is actively discouraging religion.”

In TheRooster interview Penton recounts participating in public school neutrality being broken to start LifeWise programs

Following public testimony on SB-229 at the Ohio capitol in November 2024— after which Ohio overrode school boards’ homerule of RTRI programs operating in district — Penton was interviewed by of The Rooster.

In the interview, Penton tells of public school superintendents breaking their schools’ constitutionally required RTRI neutrality.

“…we get calls sometimes from public school administrators that say, ‘My kids are leaving, and going down the road where they have a LifeWise, when are you going to open up a LifeWise in my school?’”

Additionally, During School Hours highlights multiple “LifeWise Tidbits” describing public school administrators desiring or asking how to bring LifeWise’s RTRI programming in district.

“…we got a call from an administrator in one of those neighboring districts asking how soon we might be able to expand the program to serve his schools.”

Penton does not directly state in During School Hours a school administrator’s inquiry of how to begin an RTRI program, or speaking of wanting to start a RTRI program, is a violation of legally required public school neutrality on RTRI.

Blurring neutrality, LifeWise’s Adam King meets with 60 public school educators

May 2014, a National Day of Prayer event was held at Zanesville High School in Ohio.

“The Muskingum County National Day of Prayer was held Thursday evening in the Zanesville High School cafetorium and featured prayers from community leaders for government, schools, families, businesses, churches, firefighters and law enforcement.”

The event also included remarks from Adam King, youth minister at New Hope Church and teacher at Zanesville High School, who emphasized the importance of mercy.

“It is exciting to get everyone in the community together and have the opportunity for prayer. I think that the church has lost its voice, and it is time to bring back mercy. God’s mercy is amazing.”

In 2015, a National Day of Prayer event would be held again at Zanesville High School

After working for 18 years in the Zanesville public schools as a biology teacher and then assistant principal until 2020, King started working part time for LifeWise June 2023 to bring LifeWise RTRI programming to Zanesville public schools.

In August, a few short months after starting, King was promoted to a full time Growth Representative after meeting a six-figure fundraising goal in just seven days for LifeWise corporate (as opposed to fully self-funded LifeWise local programs).

“…I’m happy to announce FULL-TIME employment with LIFEWISE ACADEMY @ the National Level. I started with them June 26 part-time & after hitting a 3 month 6-figure goal in just 7 days for the National Campaign…”

As a Growth Representative, King’s territories included southeastern Ohio, New England, most of the mid-Atlantic, and Washington, D.C.

“…assigned the SOUTHEASTERN quadrant of the state of OHIO (23 counties) and the NORTHEASTERN portion of the UNITED STATES including 12 states & Washington D.C.”

February 2024 at a LIFT gathering in Galion, Ohio hosted by Christian Educators, King met with 60 public school teachers.

“..presenting LifeWise this evening to a group of 60 public school educators at a LIFT gathering in Galion, OH (Crawford County). 🙏🏼🙏🏼”

Christian Educators describes its mission to “…support, connect, and protect Christian educators in order for them to serve as thriving ambassadors for Christ in our schools.”

In July 2025, King was promoted to Director of Statewide Initiatives at LifeWise.

A final word on legal public school neutrality

When LifeWise omits public school neutrality from its three-part, rote narrative of “lawful” religious release-time, it isn’t merely communicating an incomplete understanding of constitutional law — it’s reshaping public understanding of it which plays out into real life consequences. The result is a national movement which enthusiastically presents itself as legally compliant while depending on public school cooperation that often crosses the Establishment Clause’s constitutional line.

From Penton’s legally irrelevant redefinition of neutrality, to public school administrators openly seeking to begin LifeWise’s RTRI programs in district, the boundary between religious accommodation and endorsement continues to blur wherever LifeWise operates.

Under LifeWise, what is presented as a “community-led” initiative increasingly depends on public institutions’ access, credibility, and resources that belong to the public — not to any religious mission.

The Supreme Court’s rulings in McCollum and Zorach remain clear: public schools may adjust their schedules for religious instruction, but they may not lend their authority or influence to promote it.

Public school neutrality is not optional — and RTRI is not legal without it.

Coming soon: Part 3 - Lies By Omission During School Hours: LifeWise CEO Joel Penton’s Revisionist History of Public Education

Note: This is Part 1 of the multi-part series Lies By Omission During School Hours. The series examines how LifeWise’s oft-repeated legal formula — “off school property, with parental permission, and privately funded” — omits the constitutional requirement public schools remain neutral toward religion (thus RTRI programs).

Installments explore how LifeWise’s omission of school neutrality reshapes public perception, impacts RTRI implementation, and undermines school district impartiality.

Unless otherwise noted, all bold emphasis is solely attributable to LifeWise Exposed.

LifeWise Academy states again and again release-time religious instruction (RTRI) is legal if three criteria are met:

1. Off school property (LifeWise’s documentary also bears this name)

2. Privately funded

3. Parental permission

From Zorach v. Clauson (1952), these three talking points have become a kind of RTRI “legal holy trinity” — central to LifeWise’s public messaging and marketing — but one critical element of federal law is consistently omitted by LifeWise: public schools must remain neutral toward RTRI programming.

In How is This Legal?, LifeWise’s attorney, Jamie Kresge of Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers, says RTRI is legal and repeats the same three “legal holy trinity” talking points.

“…as long as those three pillars are met, there is no issue. This is clearly legal.”

However, Kresge never states public schools’ neutrality on RTRI is legally required.

This omission is observed again in the LifeWise FAQ:

“The Supreme Court ruling (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952) makes it both constitutional and legal for communities across the country to establish religious programs like LifeWise Academy that meet the three conditions outlined by the ruling: the programs are off school property, privately funded and parent permitted.”

However, the majority opinion in Zorach was explicit regarding government neutrality:

“The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory.”

In upholding New York City’s released-time program in Zorach, the Court emphasized that the program’s constitutionality rested on the school’s neutrality — that it neither promoted nor inhibited religion, but merely accommodated voluntary participation.

LifeWise CEO Joel Penton repeats incomplete RTRI legality ‘Off School Property, with Parental Permission, and Privately Funded’ again and again

When speaking on RTRI legality, LifeWise CEO Joel Penton repeats “Off school property, with parental permission, and privately funded” ad nauseum.

February 2025: With Pete Hegseth on Fox News.

September 2024: In the LifeWise Basics Webinar.

August 2023: On Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.

June 2024: On the Culture & Christianity: The Allen Jackson Podcast.

Penton also repeats this incomplete version of RTRI legality —

• here with Centerpoint of Trinity Broadcasting Network,

• here with Jeremy Beer, senior follow of the Center For Civil Society.

• and here with The Truth & Liberty Show

— but at no point is the constitutional requirement of public school neutrality toward RTRI programs mentioned by Penton.

LifeWise’s incomplete RTRI ‘Legal Holy Trinity’ is repeated over and over again by external parties

Failing to acknowledge the RTRI legal requirement of public school neutrality, LifeWise has repeated the phrase “off school property, with parental permission, and privately funded” so persistently the organization has effectively shaped the de facto public understanding of RTRI’s legal boundaries — a narrative now echoed, largely unquestioned, by LifeWise’s supporters, much of the media, and many public school districts.

Considering the legality of RTRI is not widely known, it is unsurprising LifeWise’s incomplete RTRI ‘legal holy trinity’ has dominated communications nationally following the program’s rapid national expansion projected to reach nearly 100,000 students across 34 states for the 2025-2026 school year.

Prior to his assassination in September 2025, Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk endorsed LifeWise Academy by quoting the incomplete RTRI legal requirements proliferated by LifeWise.

“…they said the school has to actually allow one hour a week, during school hours, for a kid to be able to have religious instruction. But it has to be off campus, the parents have to sign a waiver, and no money of the school can be used.”

In print in at least twenty states, LifeWise’s partial citation of RTRI law has been publicly framed — and often uncritically accepted at face value — as legally sufficient to meet federal and constitutional requirements.

Via WBRC (Alabama):

“…bible education classes where students can be released from school during the school day with permission from parents.

The classes are privately funded and taught off school property.”

Via Alaska Watchman (Alaska):

“LifeWise Academy operates through a Released Time Religious Instruction (RTRI) model, which is voluntary, off-campus and privately funded.”

Via Pinal Central (Arizona):

“‘To operate within the RTRI guidelines, LifeWise must be privately funded, parent-permitted and not on school or public property.’”

Via News 4 Jax (Florida):

“The program operates under a Supreme Court ruling known as Released Time Religious Instruction, which allows students to participate in religious education during school hours if three criteria are met:

• The program is privately funded

• Instruction takes place off school property

• Parents give permission for their children to participate”

Via Action News Jax (Florida):

“Federal law permits the practice as long as classes are privately funded, take place off school property, and students have parental permission.”

Via Grice Connect (Georgia):

“…it must be privately funded, conducted off school property, and require parental consent for student participation.”

Via Idaho County Free Press (Idaho):

“…..teaching the Bible during the public school day was constitutional and therefore legal in all 50 states within these three conditions:

• must take place off school property

• must be privately funded

• has to be parent-permitted”

Via WCBU (Illinois):

“In 1952, in Zorach v. Clauson, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to release time religious instruction programs, as long as the programs:

1. Took place off school property.

2. Were privately funded.

3. Required a parent’s written permission to attend.”

Via Palladium-Item (Indiana):

“…constitutional to teach the Bible during the public school day in all 50 states, given that it follows three conditions: that it be held off school premises, that it be privately funded and that parents give permission.”

Via Emporia Gazette (Kansas):

“…released time religious programs were legal as long as the following criteria was met: 1) The program must be held off of school property; 2) The program is privately funded and 3) Students must have parental permission to attend.”

Via Louisville Public Media (Kentucky):

“The program takes place during school hours, but state law says it has to happen off campus. It also can’t be publicly funded and parents have to opt in.”

Via KSLA (Louisiana):

“In 1952 the Supreme Court said public school students can in fact be released from public schools to receive religious instruction if the program is off school property, privately funded, and the students have parental permission.”

Via Martin County School District school board minutes (North Carolina):

“The program cannot be held on a school campus, the academy must be privately funded and the students must have parental permission to attend the program.”

Via Daily Reflector (North Carolina):

“…is legal in all 50 states under three conditions: 1) The program must be held off site of school premises. 2) The program is privately funded. 3) Parental permission is required for a child’s participation.”

Via ACP News (Ohio):

“LifeWise, a privately funded, parent-permission program that operates off school property... ”

Via The Oklahoman (Oklahoma)

“…upheld the right of programs like LifeWise Academy to operate as long as they met three criteria: They are privately funded, parents must give their permission, and the program must be held off school property.”

As reported to the Secular the Education Association (Pennsylvania):

Via Island Packet (South Carolina):

“…school districts may allow religious released-time education if it meets three criteria: courses must be off school grounds, be privately funded and students must receive their parents’ permission.”

Via Moore County News (Tennessee):

“…allows religious instruction during school hours for one hour per day under three conditions: 1) That the instruction takes place off school properties, 2) That the instruction is privately funded, not using government funds, and 3) That parents give permission for the instruction.”

Via Newport Plain Talk (Tennessee):

“…public school students can receive religious instruction during school hours, provided the program is off school property, privately funded, and they have parental permission.”

Via KTBS (Texas)

“In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled that students could be released from public schools during school hours to learn about religion if it was off school grounds, privately funded, and parent permitted.”

Via HeraldNet (Washington):

“The court ruled in Zorach v. Clauson that a released time program in New York was constitutional because it was off school property, did not use public funding and required parental approval.”

Via The Intelligencer (West Virginia):

“‘It’s off school property, it’s parent permission and it’s privately funded.’”

What the law actually requires

LifeWise Academy’s messaging reduces release-time religious instruction law to three conditions — off-campus, parent-permitted, and privately funded. Yet as Zorach v. Clauson (1952) and McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) make clear, the true constitutional boundary rests upon public school neutrality — that schools neither encourage nor discourage participation in RTRI programs.

Omitting that requirement, LifeWise has helped create a widespread but incomplete understanding of RTRI legality — one that continues to spread as the organization’s local programs expand nationwide at a rapid pace.

As this series continues, we will examine how the omission of public school neutrality operates in practice: from LifeWise’s internal communications to the real-world consequences when a lack of school neutrality blurs into RTRI endorsement.

Up Next: Part 2 - Lies By Omission During School Hours: LifeWise Leaves Out Constitutionally Required Public School Neutrality

LifeWise Academy is a nonprofit organization that provides release-time religious instruction (RTRI) “during school hours” to public school children. While permitted under federal law, LifeWise’s programming has raised ongoing questions about oversight, church–state boundaries, and transparency in their implementation.

Married Conflict of Interest: TCN School Board Member and TCN LifeWise Program Director

Larry Seibel is a member of the Tri-County North (TCN) school board which approved the TCN LifeWise program where his wife, Jan Seibel, serves as the paid program director.

As a long-serving member of the TCN school board—having held leadership positions such as board president in 1999 and vice president in 2025—Larry Seibel’s participation in approving the TCN LifeWise program raises a significant conflict of interest, given that his wife, Jan Seibel, was employed as the program’s paid director.

The Ohio ethics statute prohibits state employees and public officers from using their positions for personal gain:

No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or influence of office or employment to secure anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person’s duties.

Larry Seibel’s vote as a school board member to approve a LifeWise program at which his wife was employed appears inconsistent with the intent of Ohio’s ethics statute prohibiting the use of public office for private benefit.

Political Ties: TCN LifeWise Director’s Association with Rep. Rodney Creech Accused of Sexual Misconduct

LifeWise TCN director, Jan Seibel, has documented ties with Ohio Rep. Rodney Creech of District 40.

In an undated text message provided to LifeWise Exposed, Siebel speaks of her and her husband Larry Seibel socializing with Creech in an effort to promote LifeWise.

“My husband and I have a meeting here at 8am to educate Rodney Creech on LifeWise. He supports it but he has had others voice their disapproval. I invited him here, instead of the Bistro, because they both talk loudly, lol, and I’m hoping to make him into an informed advocate!”

Creech was investigated in 2025 after a minor alleged that, in 2023, he touched them inappropriately and climbed into their bed wearing only underwear with an erection. Creech has denied the allegations and was not charged following the investigation.

An investigation was opened following the teen speaking to the child advocacy group CARE House of Montgomery County, after which the Preble County sheriff requested assistance from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation of Ohio.

Per the Columbus Dispatch:

Preble County Sheriff Michael Simpson became aware of the allegations two months later but never produced a report or interviewed Creech or the teen, BCI investigators found. Preble County prosecutors declined to file charges after the case was presented to them with no investigation. Simpson admitted to a conflict of interest and said he’d ask another sheriff’s office to investigate, but he never did.

While under investigation, Creech was removed from leadership at the request of House Speaker Matt Huffman.

In July 2024, Creech attended and spoke at the TCN LifeWise program open house at the Lewisburg Baptist Church.

While Creech was not charged, the allegations raised against him prompted public concern. Jan Seibel’s outreach to him illustrates how LifeWise directors may engage politically to promote programs locally in communities.

The Rachel Snell TCN Labor Dispute and LifeWise’s “Ministerial Exception” Appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio

Perhaps the most significant LifeWise TCN controversy involves former LifeWise employee Rachel Snell who began working at the program in June 2024. Snell alleged she was asked by her supervisor, LifeWise TCN program director Jan Seibel, to falsify her timesheets and work off the clock. When she refused, Snell claims she was pushed out and replaced with a younger employee who would work for free.

Snell filed a civil rights complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC), alleging age discrimination and unlawful labor practices. LifeWise responded by seeking protection under the “ministerial exception” in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio to be exempt from OCRC jurisdiction. Ministerial exception is a legal doctrine shielding religious groups from some employment and civil rights laws. LifeWise argued that Snell was a “minister” in her job function as a lead teacher at the TCN LifeWise program.

In October 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot after Snell withdrew her OCRC complaint and OCRC granted her the right to sue LifeWise. Snell has stated she intends to pursue LifeWise for labor violations and defamation, warning that if LifeWise had prevailed, it would have potentially set a precedent allowing any religious-affiliated employer to evade employee rights protections.

Via WOSU Public Media:

“I’m almost thankful that this happened to open my eyes a little bit, because I had been really fooled by LifeWise and thought that my personal goal of serving the children in my community was what LifeWise was aligned with,” Snell said. “And then I realized, ‘oh wow LifeWise is aligned with making money for LifeWise.’”

TCN LifeWise Employee Extremist Rhetoric: “…Sold into the slavery of the public school system”

First reported by , in August 2025 the LifeWise TCN program hired Lilly Hobbs as a program teacher. Hobbs’ announcement post notes she also co-runs the ministry project The Few.

In The Few’s September 22, 2025 podcast, Hobbs says:

“We have been sold into the slavery of the public school system, we have been taught to despise our parents.”

In January 2023 The Few recorded an episode of their A Few Minutes with The Few podcast entitled How The Public Education System Is Destroying The Soul Of America, and in May 2023 stated:

“The public schools are not going to raise up a generation that will stand for truth and righteousness. No! In fact, it should be clear to all of us that the schools have completely given in to evil at this point."

“Speaking of schools…What if mothers became outraged enough by the evil indoctrination pushed onto our children by the public school system that we made the necessary sacrifices to educate our children at home?”

Such statements have raised questions about whether LifeWise instructors can maintain neutrality when engaging public school students at LifeWise programs.

Operation Misrepresentation: LifeWise is Solely “During School Hours” (Except After School at the Eaton, Ohio LifeWise Program)

Although LifeWise states its programs operate solely “during school hours,” documentation shows the Eaton, OH program previously operated after school. Prior to working at the TCN LifeWise program, Snell volunteered at the LifeWise Eaton program from 2023 to 2024.

While the LifeWise Eaton, Ohio after school program began in September 2021, LifeWise’s pilot RTRI program in Van Wert, Ohio had begun almost a full decade earlier in 2012 operating under its original name of Cross Over the Hill.

Of the Eaton, Ohio LifeWise program, LifeWise CEO Joel Penton stated:

“Eaton was an experimental program which helped us develop the model we have today... We do not have any before or after school programs.”

The LifeWise Eaton program ceased operating as an after school program in April 2024; September 2025 it was announced LifeWise Eaton would return as an RTRI program held during school hours.

Conclusion

The Tri-County North LifeWise Academy case raises questions about governance, transparency, and ethical safeguards within LifeWise’s RTRI operations. Public records and official statements may suggest that overlapping personal and institutional relationships hinder accountability when religious groups operate during public school hours.

As LifeWise expands nationwide, clearer conflict of interest standards and stronger oversight may be needed to ensure programs remain transparent, lawful, and respectful of church–state boundaries in relation to public schools and public dollars.

As of 2025, LifeWise operates adjacent to more than 1,000 schools; for the 2025-2026 school year LifeWise is projected to provide bible education during school hours to nearly 100,000 students in 34 states.

Despite LifeWise Academy’s rapid national expansion—projected to reach 100,000+ students across ~1,100 schools in 34+ states for the 2025-2026 school year—its financial model offloads nearly all operating costs onto local communities, even as LifeWise corporate reported revenue over $35 million in 2024 (155% increase over the prior fiscal year).

Local Burdens Build Corporate Profits

While volunteers and churches fundraise to keep their local LifeWise programs open, LifeWise corporate uses those same local programs to build a brand fueling national expansion while distancing itself from local programs’ daily realities, including child safety.

LifeWise corporate’s FAQ states:

“Our programs have been met with generous private donations acquired through local fundraising efforts.”

However, local LifeWise programs’ communications paint a different picture.

Carroll, OH – Despite LifeWise corporate stating in its FAQ, “Our programs are free to schools and families because of generous communities,” enrolled students’ families were asked to give $30 per month to keep the local LifeWise Bloom-Carroll program afloat.

Delaware, OH – The local LifeWise Academy Buckeye Valley program warned it may be forced to shut down if enough donations were not received, stating:

“Each program is responsible for the costs of running our program including class material, bussing, maintenance, paying our teachers, etc.”

Newark, OH – Leaders at the local LifeWise Newark program scrambled to raise $100,000 in just a few months.

“Our full annual need is around $300,000, and every dollar must be raised locally. LifeWise National provides training and structure—but no funding. If Newark doesn’t fund this work, it won’t happen here. We’ve raised just over $12,000 so far, but we’re trusting God for more.”

New Lebanon, OH – Pleading for community financial support, the local LifeWise New Lebanon program stated across multiple months it was only 20% to 38% funded:

St. Louisville, OH – The local LifeWise North Fork program sent an urgent plea for community financial support:

“This is not an easy letter to write; our North Fork Lifewise needs your help. …we are simply not getting the funding we need to sustain our program. As you know, Lifewise depends on donations to operate, as we get no funding from the schools.”

LifeWise Corporate: All the Money, None of the Responsibility

The fine print within LifeWise corporate’s company policies reveals a pattern of prioritizing its own revenue retention while shifting operational costs onto local LifeWise programs.

Despite stating local funds stay local, its own employee handbook states LifeWise corporate permanently controls all funds raised by local programs:

“All funds received by the program shall be the property of LifeWise… If a LifeWise program dissolves or disaffiliates, all funds and assets will be retained by LifeWise Academy LLC/LifeWise, Inc.”

Also in the employee handbook, LifeWise corporate states local program employees’ employer 403(b) retirement match will be taken out of community-fundraised local program funds:

“LifeWise, Inc. provides employees an opportunity to participate in its 403(b) retirement savings plan immediately upon hire… This 5% match will come from your program fund.”

At the very end of the LifeWise employee handbook are the financial performance program statuses of Yellow Zone and Red Zone:

Yellow Zone is defined as a fund balance that is less than two months of average operating expenses. Average operating expenses are calculated as an average of the previous six months of expenses…

The Red Zone is defined as a fund balance of less than $0.

When in Red Zone status underfunded local LifeWise programs may be penalized:

• Local program director’s pay demoted to local minimum wage

• Placed on a reimbursement schedule to payback LifeWise corporate

• Permanent closure

November 5, 2025, the not-yet-launched local LifeWise program in Bixby, Oklahoma posted an urgent funding plea stating they were in the Red Zone.

“…our program is in the negative $1,121. My goal is to get out of the red zone this week so that we can start raising money for curriculum, Bibles, and T-shirts for the kids ASAP for launching in a few weeks.”

Despite a bus being donated and other financial assistance, the next day on November 6, 2025, the Bixby LifeWise’s program negative balanced further increased to $1,695.

Conclusion

While LifeWise corporate has built an “almost like a franchise… very plug-and-play” model clearly replicable given its rapid national growth, this same model shifts local LifeWise programs’ costs onto the shoulders of America’s local communities—many of which may be rural or impoverished.

As LifeWise corporate coffers continue to swell year-over-year with near exponential growth, more and more local LifeWise programs — and their local communities — will be born into an environment of constant fundraising pressure to meet both their day-to-day operational costs and thousands in annual fees owed to LifeWise corporate.

LifeWise Academy, a rapidly growing national "release-time" religious instruction program, is under increasing scrutiny for its internal practices, hiring policies, and supervision standards regarding child safety. Documented incidents and operational failures have exposed serious oversight and procedural gaps, raising concerns about ongoing potential risks of child endangerment, neglect, and sexual abuse of children within LifeWise’s care.

Children's Bible Study Approved at Chemical Factory Employing “Sexually Violent Predator"

Initially approved in 2022, LifeWise expanded its program in late 2024 to the Dekalb County Eastern Community School District in Butler, Indiana, selecting the meeting location of a conference room at Color Master—a paint chemical factory—that employed a registered sex offender classified as a “sexually violent predator.”

Emails to parents confirm that school officials were aware the Lifewise program would be held at the Color Master factory.

The Dekalb County Sheriff’s Office also confirmed that LifeWise was approved to operate at the factory location.

Following public outcry, the LifeWise program in Butler was relocated to a local church.

However, LifeWise has repeatedly failed to address inquiries regarding safety protocols, internal oversight, how Color Master was an approved program location despite employing a “sexually violent predator,” and why this information was not disclosed beforehand to students’ parents.

The Color Master child endangerment incident has also been reported on by the Secular Education Association (formerly Parents Against LifeWise).

Lax Background Checks: LifeWise Director Hired After Sexting Multiple Children

Beyond criminal background checks, public school employees and child care providers are mandated by state oversight regulations to also be screened within child abuse databases.

“LifeWise volunteers, staff, leadership, and board members undergo comprehensive background screenings upon hire and every three years thereafter. These screenings are conducted by ProScreening…”

Notably, LifeWise’s background check vendor ProSceening does not include screening child abuse databases as an offered service.

Previously fired from Loudonville High School in 2018 for “report of her serious misconduct and abuse of a minor student," which included sending explicit sexual messages and images to minors—sexting—in July 2024 Renee Beck was hired as the LifeWise program director at Firelands, Ohio.

According to CEO Joel Penton, LifeWise depends largely on an honor system—trusting employees and volunteers to voluntarily disclose past misconduct—as its primary method for identifying potential safety and abuse risks to children in its care which fall outside of criminal background checks.

"We have since learned that while no charges had been filed and she didn’t have a criminal record, she failed to disclose important information to LifeWise staff about her employment history…"

Following the alleged sexual misconduct brought to light by parties external to LifeWise, Beck was terminated.

Refusal to Release Volunteers’ Background Checks to School Districts

Following multiple requests, A LifeWise program in New Carlisle, Indiana was halted in July 2025 after background check records required by New Prairie United School Corporation’s RTRI policy were not released by LifeWise.

Planned for the 2025-2026 school year, the program is on hold due to NPUSC requiring Indiana state police checks or disclosure of LifeWise’s background check results. LifeWise refused to release the records, claiming no legal obligation. After six weeks of requests, NPUSC halted the program until LifeWise meets its safety requirements:

“After nearly six weeks of waiting, LifeWise informed NPUSC they would not share background check results of their volunteers with NPUSC, would not require their volunteers to participate in our volunteer background check process, and are under no legal obligation to cooperate with the request.”

LifeWise Committee Chair Convicted of Negligent Child Endangerment

Prior to volunteering with LifeWise, Sandusky, Ohio LifeWise committee chair Jillian Jaumzemis, a home daycare provider, received a misdemeanor of negligent child endangerment when a toddler in her care was found wandering in the street.

As like other risks of abuse and endangerment highlighted here, Jaumzemis’ negligent child endangerment misdemeanor was made public by parties external to LifeWise.

Local LifeWise publicly posts video of unclothed toddler

November 2025, Ohio’s Buckeye Valley LifeWise program posted a home video including a toddler who appears to be unclothed.

A public school would never be permitted to post an unclothed or partially clothed child without scrutiny — LifeWise Buckeye Valley posting a video of an unclothed child prompts questions about child safety protocols, program governance, and oversight within local LifeWise programs.

Furthermore, the question is raised whether LifeWise’s rapid national expansion has far outpaced LifeWise corporate’s ability — or willingness—to meaningfully provide critical oversight and guidance to its thousands of local RTRI programs nationwide.

A Culture of Zero Accountability

While LifeWise Academy continues to expand rapidly into public school districts across the country, its internal controls have not scaled with its growth to meet basic standards of child safety.

The incidents cited here are not isolated — they reflect gaps baked into the organization’s structure, including flawed hiring practices, little-to-no oversight, and a persistent resistance to accountability for children’s safety.

Despite repeatedly relying on outside parties to identify child abuse risks within its own ranks—a pattern that appears to be its default approach — LifeWise has shown no clear plan to confront or correct its ongoing failures to protect the very children it claims to serve.

Until LifeWise adopts transparent, rigorous safety policies—including universal child abuse database screening, cooperation with school district RTRI policies, crystal clear reporting procedures, and third party safety oversight along with procedural audits—documented incidents show a continued risk of harm to children in LifeWise’s care.

LifeWise Academy is a rapidly expanding, profit-driven corporatized nonprofit exploiting the legal loophole of Released Time Religious Instruction (RTRI) to infiltrate public schools during public school hours.

Legal under a 1952 Supreme Court ruling (Zorach v. Clauson), RTRI is legal if:

• Parental Consent: Students have written permission from parents or guardians to participate.

• Off-Campus Instruction: Religious instruction occurs off school property.

• No Public Funding: Programs are entirely privately funded, with no use of public funds including public school or tax-payer funded public resources.

• Voluntary Participation: Attendance must be voluntary, ensuring no coercion or pressure is applied to students to participate.

• Non-Core Class Interference: RTRI must occur during non-core classes (e.g., art, music, lunch) and not conflict with primary educational instruction.

• No School Endorsement or Influence: As public schools must remain neutral, they may not endorse, promote, or dissuade participation in any RTRI program.

Following Zorach, LifeWise–and other RTRI programs–are free to legally operate in all 50 states with no prohibition, zero oversight, and little-to-no requirements placed upon them.

However, as will be seen in more detail in subsequent posts, LifeWise has consistently skirted RTRI legal requirements while continuing to lobby elected officials across multiple states (Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas among others) to influence RTRI policy in pursuit of its own profit-driven agenda under the guise of religious education for students.

Given that 87% of American children are at the same place, at the same time five days a week—public schools—LifeWise has created an extremely financially profitable, parallel religious education system built upon taxpayer funded public school operations and the unpaid labor of school staff.

Additionally, LifeWise has benefited from school administrators’ endorsements in some districts, and also promotion by state politicians.

Just like the authors of Project 2025 (Heritage Foundation awarded LifeWise a Heritage Innovation Prize in 2025), LifeWise has presented detailed operational plans with the stated goal of operating in all American public schools districts within the next 30 years.

LifeWise Vision Statement:

“To reach unchurched students in public schools with the gospel through a replicable released time religious instruction program.”

Registered to operate as a nonprofit in almost all 50 states, with almost 30x the assets of Moms for Liberty ($853,741 vs. $24,856,848) and thousands of volunteers and employees in 30+ states as of May 2025, LifeWise Academy is the largest threat to American public education no one has ever heard of.

While religious interests seeking to enter or access public school students is nothing new, LifeWise’s rapid growth within public schools nationally and projected trajectory is what should be cause for grave concern (if not fear) given its stated goal of being present in all public schools.

Notably, there also exists the sobering fact every single public school–more than 98,000–are already on the LifeWise website ready to start a local LifeWise program petition in just Three. Easy. Clicks.

Positioned innocuously as “character education” via bible study for students “during (public) school hours,” LifeWise functions operationally as a hybrid between a franchise and multi-level marketing group openly touting its ease of execution as a “plug-and-play model.”

Aligning with its “growth” and “advancement” goals, LifeWise Academy has “growth representatives” assigned to “growth” (read: sales) territories:

Follow The Money:

• While legally a nonprofit, LifeWise’s operations mimic those of a sales team:

  • Territory Targeting: Uses mapping tools to identify high-potential public school districts, like a sales territory strategy.

  • Pipeline System: Tracks districts through the LifeWise programs’ 10 steps (interest → launch) mirroring a sales funnel.

  • Lead Nurturing: Collects emails and follows up with automated outreach, similar to CRM-based sales processes; LifeWise uses the Salesforce CRM which it calls “The List.”

  • Franchise Model: Offers standardized curriculum, branding, and operations support—like a replicable (“plug-and-play”) business unit.

  • Performance Metrics: Staff and volunteers have growth goals and track conversions like sales KPIs.

  • Revenue-Driven: Local programs rely entirely on private funding, requiring local fundraising (“trustraising”) to drive operational revenue quotas.

  • Community Lobbying: Trains local LifeWise programs to pitch school boards and build local support among communities and churches—analogous to grassroots sales tactics.

  • Brand Marketing: Employs polished PR, out-of-the-box messaging and marketing content to drive adoption and build brand recognition, much like corporate product campaigns.

Profit-Driven: Local LifeWise Programs are Fully Financially Self-Supporting with No Funds Provided by LifeWise Corporate:

• Employee Retirement: LifeWise local program employees self-fund their employer match 401k contributions through local own fundraising.

• “Financial Underperformance”: Local LifeWise programs with insufficient funds to cover expenses may be “red zoned” with directors’ pay demoted to state minimum wage.

• Closed for Poor Financial Performance: Local programs may be shut-down and put on a payment plan to compensate LifeWise corporate following a warning period.

Though claiming to focus on “character education” through Bible lessons, LifeWise Academy puts profit first, with money superseding—and arguably killing the effectiveness and reach of—its self-professed evangelical mission.

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
Matthew 6:24

With unparalleled organizational and financial growth adjacent to—most importantly, impossible without—access to children attending American public school districts, LifeWise Academy’s big red bus flies its own big red flag.