The Supreme Court and the Future of Public Education: A Case with Far-Reaching Implications
Introduction: A Pivotal Moment for Public Education
While the nation waits with bated breath for the Supreme Court’s decisions on various high-profile cases, a lesser-known but equally significant case is set to be argued next month. This case has the potential to destabilize the foundation of public education in the United States. At its core, the question is whether states that allow charter schools as alternatives to traditional public schools must also agree to fund religious charter schools. The case in question, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, involves a virtual Catholic school seeking to operate as a taxpayer-funded public charter school. The implications of this case are profound, challenging the long-standing separation of church and state in public education.
The Historical Context: Balancing the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses
The case revolves around the two religion clauses of the First Amendment: the Free Exercise Clause, which protects the right to practice religion, and the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing or favoring a religion. Historically, the Supreme Court has struggled to balance these two clauses, often finding itself caught between the need to protect religious freedom and the need to prevent government endorsement of religion. In the 2004 case Locke v. Davey, the court upheld a state’s decision to exclude funding for ministerial studies from an otherwise broadly available scholarship program. The court reasoned that the state’s decision was a legitimate attempt to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, even though it burdened the free exercise of religion for those seeking to study for the ministry.
However, in recent years, the court has shifted its approach. In the 2022 case Carson v. Makin, the court ruled that a state could not exclude religious schools from a program that allowed parents to use public funds to send their children to private schools. The court held that such exclusions violated the Free Exercise Clause. This shift reflects a new approach by the court, where the Free Exercise Clause is given greater weight, and the Establishment Clause is interpreted more narrowly. The court has increasingly embraced a nondiscrimination principle, arguing that if the government provides a benefit to secular entities, it must also provide it to religious entities. This principle has been applied in cases involving vouchers, tax credits, and other forms of public funding.
The Case at Hand: A Virtual Catholic School’s Quest for Public Funding
The current case before the court takes this principle a step further. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an internet-based school operated by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, seeks to operate as a taxpayer-funded public charter school. The school’s mission is to promote the “evangelizing mission of the Church,” and it would offer a curriculum infused with Catholic teachings. The question before the court is whether the Constitution requires Oklahoma to permit the school to operate as a public charter school, funded by taxpayer dollars. This is not just a matter of whether a state may choose to include religious schools in its charter school program; it is whether the state must do so. If the court rules in favor of the school, it would mark the first time in modern American history that a fully taxpayer-supported religious school has been established.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has already ruled that allowing the school to operate as a public charter school would violate both the federal Establishment Clause and the Oklahoma Constitution. The state court emphasized that charter schools, like traditional public schools, are considered state actors and must adhere to the same constitutional requirements. The court noted that while charter schools are free from some state regulations, they are still public schools and must remain neutral on religious matters. The court rejected the argument that excluding the school from the charter school program amounted to discrimination against religion, stating that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing the establishment of religion.
The Arguments: Free Exercise vs. Establishment Clause
The parties appealing the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision argue that the school is a private institution and that the state’s refusal to fund it amounts to discrimination against religion. They contend that the Free Exercise Clause requires the state to treat religious schools the same as secular schools when it comes to public funding. The school’s lawyers, including the Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Clinic, argue that the state has violated the school’s right to free exercise by excluding it from the benefits of the Charter Schools Act solely because it is religious. They also argue that the school is not an arm of the state and that its religious mission does not make it ineligible for public funding.
On the other side, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who initially sued to block the school’s approval, argues that allowing the school to operate as a public charter school would violate the Establishment Clause. Drummond warns that approving the school would create a slippery slope, opening the door to charter school applications from a wide range of religious groups, some of which may promote controversial or divisive ideologies. He argues that the state has a duty to ensure that public funds are not used to support religious institutions, and that allowing the school to operate would blur the line between church and state.
The Implications: A Fragmented Public Education System
The implications of this case extend far beyond Oklahoma. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the school, it could pave the way for religious schools across the country to seek public funding as charter schools. This would likely lead to a fragmented public education system, where students are divided into religious and secular schools. Public education has long been seen as a unifying force in American society, providing a common experience for students of all backgrounds. If religious schools are allowed to operate as public charter schools, this unity could be undermined, leaving secular public schools to serve an increasingly marginalized population.
Moreover, allowing religious schools to receive public funding could lead to a scramble for resources among various religious groups. As of 2021, some 3.7 million students were enrolled in public charter schools across the country. If religious schools are allowed to join this system, the number could grow significantly, as many parents would be attracted to the option of a taxpayer-funded religious education. This could lead to a situation where public funds are being used to support a wide range of religious ideologies, some of which may conflict with the values of pluralism and inclusivity that public education is intended to promote.
Conclusion: The Future of Public Education and Civil Society
The case before the Supreme Court presents a stark choice. If the court rules that St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School must be allowed to operate as a taxpayer-funded public charter school, it would further erode the Establishment Clause and pave the way for a fragmented public education system. On the other hand, if the court upholds the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision, it would reaffirm the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between church and state in public education.
At a time when the country is grappling with issues of religious nationalism and cultural polarization, the stakes could not be higher. The future of public education, one of the few institutions that still bring Americans together, hangs in the balance. If the court allows religious schools to become an integral part of the public education system, it could lead to a further divide in American society, undermining the civil society that public education was designed to foster. The case is a reminder that the separation of church and state is not just a legal principle but a fundamental aspect of American democracy. As the court weighs the competing interests, it must carefully consider the long-term consequences of its decision for the future of public education and the unity of the nation.
The Significance of the Case: A Threat to Civil Society
In a dissenting opinion in a 2000 case, Mitchell v. Helms, Justice David Souter warned of the dangers of government funding for religious institutions. He wrote that such funding serves multiple purposes: it protects individual conscience, preserves the integrity of religion, and maintains the unity of political society. These words are even more relevant today, as the country faces growing tensions over issues of religion, culture, and identity. If the Supreme Court allows religious schools to receive public funding as charter schools, it could lead to a further polarization of society, as different religious groups compete for public resources.
The case is not just about the future of public education; it is about the future of civil society. Public education has long been a cornerstone of American democracy, providing a shared experience that helps to foster a sense of common citizenship. If religious schools are allowed to operate as public charter schools, this shared experience could be lost, leaving behind a fragmented and divided society. The Supreme Court must carefully weigh the competing interests and consider the broader implications of its decision. The future of public education and the unity of the nation are at stake.
