State funding of private-school vouchers is primarily being used for students attending religious institutions, with nearly 98% of funding going toward Catholic, Christian, Jewish and Islamic schools.

This year, state lawmakers passed a budget that included a request from Gov. Mike Kehoe to supply the state-run K-12 scholarship program, MOScholars, with $50 million of general revenue. Previously, the impact to the state’s bottom line was indirect, with 100% tax-deductible donations fueling the program.

Donations are still part of MOScholars’ funding, but the state appropriation has more than doubled the number of scholarships available.

During the 2024-25 school year, MOScholars awarded $15.2 million in scholarships.

In August alone, the State Treasurer’s Office received invoices for scholarships totaling $15.6 million, according to documents obtained by The Independent under Missouri’s open records laws.

The invoice process is unique to the direct state funding of the program. The nonprofits that administer scholarships, called educational assistance organizations, were the sole keepers of scholarship funds. But now, the State Treasurer’s Office holds scholarship money derived from general revenue in an account previously only used for program marketing and administration.

The invoices contained data on which schools MOScholars students are attending and the scholarship amount.

Of the 2,329 scholarships awarded in August, only 59 went to students in nonreligious schools.

This number did not surprise Democratic lawmakers, who for years have warned that state revenue was going to be siphoned into religious schools.

“We are simply subsidizing, with tax dollars, parents who would already choose to send their kids to a private school,” state Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat, told The Independent. “And now we are using public dollars to pay for schools that are not transparent whatsoever in choosing who to educate and who not.”

Some schools have been criticized for admission requirements that push a moral standard.

Christian Fellowship School in Columbia, which received scholarships for 63 MOScholars students in August, requires “at least one parent of enrolled students professes faith in Christ and agrees with the admission policies and the philosophy and doctrinal statements of the school,” according to its . 

These statements include disapproval of homosexuality.

“The school reserves the right, within its sole discretion, to refuse admission of an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student,” the handbook continues.

With around 430 K-12 students enrolled at Christian Fellowship School, according to , MOScholars makes up a sizable portion of its funding. But it is not the only school with a large number of scholarship recipients.

Torah Prep School in St. Louis had 229 K-12 students during the 2023-24 school year. And in August, 197 MOScholars students received funding to attend the school. Torah Prep did not respond to a request for comment.

The high number of students attending religious schools with MOScholars funding is somewhat incidental, somewhat by design.

The MOScholars program allows its six educational assistance organizations to choose what scholarships they are willing to support. 

Religious organizations stepped into the role to help connect congregants with affiliated schools. Only two of the six educational assistance organizations partner with schools unaffiliated with religion.

The Catholic dioceses of Kansas City-St. Joseph and Springfield-Cape Girardeau run the educational assistance organization Bright Futures Fund, which administered nearly half of the scholarships awarded in August.

The educational assistance organization Agudath Israel of Missouri focuses on Jewish education, partnering with four Jewish day schools.

The organization’s director Hillel Anton told The Independent that students are attracted to the program for more than just religious reasons.

“(Parents’) first and foremost concern is where their child is going to be able to be in the best learning environment,” Anton said. “And you may have a faith-based school that is fantastic and is able to provide that.”

The demand for the program has long . Going into August, organizations had waitlists of students eligible for a scholarship but without funding secured.

Agudath Israel of Missouri couldn’t guarantee scholarships for all of the returning students, Anton said, until the state funding was official.

“Because a lot of the funding is done towards the end of the year… we had everyone on a wait list,” he said. “Because we didn’t know necessarily how much funding we were going to have, we weren’t awarding anyone (the funding).”

Because the program was previously powered by 100% tax-deductible donations, the majority of funds poured in around December. But families need the money months sooner, with tuition due at the start of the school year.

Some educational assistance organizations prefunded scholarships, dipping into their savings to front expenses in the fall. Others had schools that would accept students and wait for payment.

The funding from the state, though, has resolved the backlog and allowed organizations to give scholarships to everyone on their wait list.

“Everyone who qualified for a scholarship this year received one,” Ashlie Hand, Bright Futures Fund’s director of communications, told The Independent.

Bright Futures Fund nearly doubled the number of students it serves, from 1,050 to 1,909.

Agudath Israel of Missouri is growing, too. The new funding helped the organization expand from 175 scholarships last year to 277 this year.

Some expect the state funding to continue next year to support this year’s windfall of scholarships. State Treasurer Vivek Malek  that if donations fall short, he will request state funds to support the new students through graduation.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

When Idaho lawmakers consider a policy change affecting public schools a detailed spreadsheet is usually nearby.

When it comes to private schools, however, data is scanty. The state doesn’t regulate private schooling, so it doesn’t collect much information on private schools or their students.

This information is in high demand as the Idaho Legislature is preparing to consider proposals that would send taxpayer funds to private school students to help them pay tuition and other expenses.

There is some publicly available data on private schools, and it’s likely to shape debates about who would benefit from a private school choice program.

For instance, Idaho’s private schools are concentrated in urban areas, while there’s just one private school or none in more than half of the state’s counties. And most private schools are religious, teeing up likely debates over whether the state should fund religious institutions, and if so, how much oversight the state should have.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

How many private school students are in Idaho?

Data on private school enrollment is sporadic and collected through voluntary reporting or crowd-sourced information.

The conducts voluntary surveys of private schools — most recently during the 2021-22 school year — and websites like curate data submitted by school administrators and private school parents.

The Idaho State Department of Education also maintains a. And earlier this year, Bas van Doorn, a researcher for the Idaho State Board of Education, published a of private school data relying on similar sources.

These sources offer more of a sketch than a clear picture of private school enrollment, which shows:

• Idaho has between 117 and 155 primary and secondary private schools,
• These schools enroll between 16,843 and 22,271 students,
• Private school enrollment increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and
• Today, private schoolers represent between 5% and 6% of school-age children.

By comparison, 313,160 attended public schools this fall. Idaho’s public school enrollment has increased every year of the last decade, except for one — 2020-21 — while growth has slowed over the last year, with several of the largest school districts seeing enrollment dips.

Leaders in the Boise and Nampa school districts have said aging populations and housing trends are causing their drop-offs, but transfers to private schools likely contributed as well.

Nationally, private school enrollment has increased in recent years as public school enrollment has dipped. that the pandemic accelerated this pre-existing trend.

Forthcoming bill will target low-income families

Lawmakers could consider a full menu of devices that deliver subsidies for private education: Vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs), tax credits. And they could add restrictions, limiting eligibility based on income or disability, or open it up to anyone.

Idaho Rep. Wendy Horman last legislative session proposed a tax credit program, and she’s preparing to introduce a new version that targets low-income students. The Republican from Idaho Falls previously pitched a refundable tax credit worth $5,000 — or $7,500 for special needs students — covering private school tuition and other non-public school expenses.

House Bill 447 made $40 million in tax credits universally accessible to non-public school students, reserved another $10 million for students from low-income families and capped spending at $50 million. Horman didn’t share many details on the new bill, including the total cost, but said it will be more focused on “low-income families who need options.”

A $50 million private school choice program would be a fraction of what the state spends on public schools, which was about $2.7 billion last fiscal year. And Horman noted public school spending has doubled since a decade ago, after a series of investments that she supported.

“There are still some students for whom the public system doesn’t work,” she said. “Most people are still going to choose the public system, and I will continue my work of supporting the public system, but this is a bill about helping kids who can’t afford other opportunities.”

But lawmakers could lift a spending cap or remove income restrictions in future legislative sessions. Horman, co-chair of the Legislature’s budget committee, acknowledged these are possibilities, but she pointed to that shows public support for a tax credit available to non-public school families.

“It’s a matter of priorities,” she said. “Revenues are still looking strong for Idaho…To me, it’s impossible to put a price tag on the value of a child being successful in getting an education that works best for them.”

Rod Gramer is the former CEO of Idaho Business for Education and one of the state’s most vocal opponents of private school tuition subsidies. After studying similar programs in other states, he estimates that a universal program in Idaho could cost up to $300 million, and universal eligibility is likely the goal of advocacy groups and lobbyists pushing for private school choice in Idaho. 

“They’ll just keep hammering until they get universal vouchers with no sideboards, no income limit,” he said.

Gramer pointed to Arizona, where lawmakers lifted all restrictions on ESAs in 2022. The universal program has been popular but costly amid a budget deficit spurred by tax cuts. that the state is spending $800 million on the ESAs, well beyond initial projections, and they’re expected to reach $912 million next year. Arizona has about three times as many school-age children as Idaho.

Former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who signed the universal expansion into law, is scheduled to appear at a news conference next month at the Idaho Statehouse, where the Mountain States Policy Center is debuting a bill.

Following Arizona’s lead would threaten Idaho’s budget, and ultimately its ability to fund public schools, Gramer argues.

“This is just common sense…Every state has just so much money to go around.”

Where are private schools located?

Most of Idaho’s private schools are concentrated in urban areas. Ada, Canyon and Kootenai are home to 65% of the state’s private school students compared to 56% of Idaho’s overall population, according to an EdNews analysis of Private School Review’s data.

Cole Valley Christian Schools is Idaho’s largest private school with about 1,400 students across campuses in Boise and Meridian. Enrollment has doubled the last four years, according to superintendent Allen Howlett.

Howlett credits much of the rapid growth to new families moving in from out of state, while a minority have transferred from public schools in the area. School leaders are now raising donations for a , consolidated campus that will add capacity for 400 students. and first reported the plans.

Meanwhile, Howlett is part of a coalition of private school leaders that’s urging state lawmakers to adopt a private school choice program. Howlett said he doesn’t know whether it would quickly fill the seats at the new campus, and full financing for construction is years away.

But he believes the state aid would help his neediest families, and it would boost competition between private schools and public schools, leading to better performance across the board.

“I am in favor of competition, period,” he said. “Everything that I see that is positive about our community, our society, competition is one of the things that drives excellence.”

Studies on whether tuition subsidies lead to better academic performance in private schools have produced mixed results, . But research suggests that a competitive education market improves public school students’ performance.

Meanwhile, 17 of Idaho’s 44 counties don’t have a private school and nine counties have just one. Plenty of rural students are home-schooled, and they’d have access to state funds for micro-schools, Horman noted.

“This would be a continued investment in students in Idaho, no matter where they’re learning, whether that’s Sandpoint or Boise.”

But critics argue that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize private schools without having access to them.

Quinn Perry, policy and government affairs director for the Idaho School Boards Association, noted that most recipients of these “entitlement programs” in other states already attended private schools. That’s been the case in Arizona as well as , Iowa, and , where lawmakers have recently enacted private school choice programs or expanded eligibility for existing ones.

“Rural taxpayers are saying ‘We’re not going to foot the bill for kids in Boise to go to private school,’” Perry said.

Additionally, rural communities face unique challenges when it comes to funding public schools, said an . Compared to urban school districts with more robust tax bases, rural school districts have limited local resources to lean on and rely for heavily on state funding. In other words, if the state tightens spending on public schools in favor of private education, rural school districts will be the first to feel it.

“While the negative financial consequences of voucher programs are felt statewide, rural communities are hit especially hard,” the analysis said.

How many private schools are religious?

Nearly two in three private schools in Idaho are religious, according to van Doorn’s analysis for the State Board. Most are Protestant while one in five are Roman Catholic.

Religious school leaders say faith-based education is a draw for families but not everyone can afford it. Tammy Emerich, superintendent of Catholic schools for the Diocese of Boise, in March urged state lawmakers to support the tax credit bill. The Diocese has 14 schools with nearly 4,000 students across the state, she said, and 10 of these schools qualify for federal services targeting low income families.

“The reality for families is that public school is not the perfect fit for every child,” Emerich told the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. “…Many of our parents are making huge financial sacrifices to send their children to a school that aligns with their values.”

But the prospect of sending public funds to religious schools has led to unease on both sides of the debate over private school choice.

Opponents argue it entangles the government with religious institutions in violation of longstanding church-state barriers. Framers of the Idaho Constitution prohibited taxpayer funds from benefitting religious schools in two different sections of the 1890 document, Gramer noted.

“They were very clear,” he said.

Idaho wouldn’t be alone in financing religious education, however. A nationwide uptick in new tuition subsidy programs followed a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that said states giving money to private schools couldn’t exclude religious schools.

An this summer found that between 82% and 98% of private school vouchers and ESA funds have gone to religious schools in Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, Florida and Wisconsin.

Some Christian school leaders, meanwhile, are wary of new regulations that could come with the public funds. Idaho’s religious schools have long enjoyed the freedom to teach, test and select students on their own terms, but private school choice proposals in the past have failed amid calls for more oversight and accountability.

Cole Valley Christian mostly follows the Idaho Department of Education’s content standards, Howlett said. But it diverges when the standards are “in contradiction to our biblical values.” The school also doesn’t admit students from families without at least one “Bible-believing Christian” parent.

“Many of our school boards and parents would not support something that would jeopardize our autonomy,” Howlett said.

A handful of states require that private schools report testing results as part of their private school choice programs. A recently enacted for instance, requires that schools receiving the money

HB 447 didn’t include a similar provision measuring academic progress, and Horman declined to say whether she added one to her new proposal.

“I’m going to defer answering that question,” she said. “I will say that there is strong accountability in the bill for use of the money.”

Howlett said he wouldn’t oppose an assessment, as long as schools could choose the test, but anything that would “tell us what we have to teach and how we teach it” is a potential dealbreaker for Christian schools. Parents hold private school leaders accountable, he said.

“If they don’t feel like we’re meeting the needs of their kids or meeting their expectations, they take their money and go.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com.

More than 150 people submitted opponent testimony against a bill that would require school districts to allow students to be released from school for religious instruction.

Opponents argued religious release time programs disrupt the school day, create a divide between students who participate and those that don’t, and interfere with religious freedom.

“My concern with religious release time programs during the school day is the rights of the children who do not participate in those programs,” said Rev. Vicki Zust, rector of Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church in Upper Arlington.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Three opponents were able to give their testimony during last week’s Ohio House Primary and Secondary Education Committee meeting and committee chair Gayle Manning, R-North Ridgeville, had to remind those in attendance to be quiet during testimony.

“We are not applauding. … We remain silent,” Manning said.

The three opponents specifically spoke about experiences they have seen with , a Hilliard-based religious instruction program that enrolls . LifeWise, a non-denominational Christian program that teaches the Bible, is in .

“During proponent testimony in June, it became clear this bill is not about religious pluralism,” said Christina Collins, executive director of Honesty for Ohio Education. “It is about one, very well-funded program wanting to push its brand of Christian nationalist beliefs on a captive audience during the school day.”

Nearly 120 people submitted proponent testimony in June.

Ohio law currently permits school district boards of education to make a policy to let students go to a course in religious instruction, so these bills would strengthen the law by requiring a policy. A set of companion bills would require school districts to create a religious release time policy and change the wording of the existing law in the Ohio Revised Code from “may” to “shall.”

 was introduced earlier this year by state Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, and Al Cutrona, R-Canfield, who is now a state senator. Sen. Michele Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, introduced this summer.

“To be honest with you guys, I think this might be the easiest piece of legislation before you this General Assembly,” Cutrona said during a recent Senate Education Committee meeting. “Why? Because there’s only one word change in this bill, and so we’re just moving it from may to shall. … The intent of this bill is to leave the decision to participate in religious release time programs up to the parents, not the school boards.”

“Despite the fact that it’s only one word, it’s a huge word,” said State Sen. Catherine D. Ingram, D-Cincinnati.

The United States Supreme Court upheld released time laws during the 1952 case, which allowed a school district to have students leave school for part of the day to receive religious instruction.

“While LifeWise claims that the process of leaving and returning to school is smooth, anyone who has ever tried to organize first graders for a field trip knows it is far from seamless,” said Jaclyn Fraley, the mom of a first-grader in Westerville Schools.

Westerville City Schools Board of Education recently that allowed LifeWise Academy to take public school students off-campus for Bible classes during school hours.

“One parent in my group (Westerville Parents United) shared that her daughter was told in class that she and her mothers were “going to hell” because they belong to an LGBTQIA family,” Fraley said. “Another parent described how their child was told they didn’t ‘really believe in God’ because they are not Christian.”

Elementary school students who do not attend LifeWise in Defiance Schools in Northwest Ohio are sent to study hall and are called “LifeWise leftovers,” Fraley said.

Zust said parents in her congregation who choose not to allow their children to participate in the program are mocked and threatened.

“This creates a hostile environment for the children of my congregation as well as children of other denominations and faiths,” Zust said. “That is a violation of their First Amendment and educational rights.”

Opponents argued there are other ways students can learn about religion outside of school time.

“We didn’t have these programs,” Fraley said. “Our parents took us to church. Our parents took us to temple. Our parents took us to mosque. Our parents took us to the places where we went to learn those religious beliefs.”

State Rep. Jodi Whitted, D-Madeira, asked how these programs accommodate students with Individualized Education Programs, but Collins explained there can’t be an exchange of information with programs like LifeWise since IEPs remain within the district.

“We’re talking about students with special needs who are being sent off campus to people that are ill-equipped to work with them, with no built-in caveats for necessitating being able to meet those needs,” Collins said.

State Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, asked how districts accommodate students with fixed prayer times.

“They simply leave, do their prayers and come back,” Collins said. “It’s not a leaving the campus, coming back with stickers and candy kind of event.”

State Rep. Joe Miller, D-Amherst, said his office has received nearly 200 emails against H.B. 445 and less than 20 in support of it.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on and .

This article was updated on Friday, Nov. 1, 2024 at 4:40 p.m. with comments from the governor’s spokesperson.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders former Little Rock Christian Academy administrator Gary Arnold to the State Board of Education on Friday.

“What I love most about Gary is his passion for education, his belief that every student can learn and his relentless commitment and pursuit of his faith,” Sanders said in a press conference announcing the appointment.

Arnold is an advocate for school choice and was a member of the “rules and regulations task force” the state used to implement the wide-ranging , Sanders said.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

“Through Gary’s careful stewardship, the first school year with Arkansas LEARNS was a huge success, and the second year is shaping up to be even better,” Sanders said.

LEARNS created the Education Freedom Account program, a taxpayer-funded school voucher system that will be available to all Arkansas students in the 2025-26 school year; are participating in the program this year.

Sanders said Arnold will represent the interests of EFA participants during his term on the board, which will expire in 2027. He succeeds Steve Sutton, who stepped down from the board in the middle of his seven-year term.

“The Governor wanted to find the right, experienced addition to the Board of Education who could help put every student on the pathway to success, and that’s exactly what Gary will do,” Sanders’ communications director, Sam Dubke, said when asked why the governor took nearly 11 months to appoint Sutton’s successor.

Arnold is Sanders’ third appointee to the , after and last year. Former Republican state lawmaker Bragg co-authored the LEARNS Act, and Keener participated in a LEARNS work group focused on early childhood education, which is her area of expertise.

The LEARNS Act also raised the state’s minimum annual teacher salary to $50,000 and required literacy screenings for K-12 students.

Arnold praised these and other aspects of the LEARNS Act and said he was honored to accept the appointment and “the responsibility of joining this team.”

He likened working in education to author Mark Twain’s experience as a steamboat pilot on the Mississippi River in his memoir Life on the Mississippi, which Arnold said he recently reread.

“The most important function and job of the boat pilot is to learn the river, Old Man River, because it changes every day,” Arnold said. “One day the currents will be this way, one day there will be a tree or shoal that wasn’t there before… Life in the schools changes every day. We just have to learn the river and have that growth mindset.”

Sanders said both Arnold and Education Secretary Jacob Oliva “think deeply and critically about how we can fix the areas of our school system that are broken.”

Arnold was head of school at Little Rock Christian Academy from 2007 to 2023. He is now the Director of Head of School Certification at The Council on Educational Standards and Accountability and the founder of the consulting company NextEd. Both organizations serve Christian schools.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on and .

The state of Ohio is giving taxpayer money to private, religious schools to help them build new buildings and expand their campuses, which is nearly unprecedented in modern U.S. history.

This story was in ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on and .

As the Texas Legislature debates school vouchers, one of the staunchest supporters of the initiative has been the Catholic Church.

Texas Catholic leaders have been among the longest-running advocates for Gov. ’s top current legislative priority, which would allow parents to use taxpayer money for private education expenses. That’s true even as some other religious leaders have firmly opposed the legislation.

Why are they divided? Catholic leaders say other religious leaders don’t fully appreciate the voucher program’s benefits, particularly its potential to expand access to private education. Voucher critics say Catholic leaders are acting in the interest of their own schools, which have experienced declining enrollment for decades, while promoting a program that could harm public schools.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

A voucher program would give parents the opportunity to choose a religious education regardless of their income level, said Jennifer Allmon, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, which oversees all 254 Catholic schools in Texas.

“It’ll take a few years, but our primary hope is that it will open the doors of our schools to even more low-income families and provide even greater access for those who wish to use Catholic schools for the education of their children,” Allmon said.

Historic enrollment decline

Aside from a post-pandemic surge, Catholic school enrollment has been declining nationwide since the late 1960s, . In 2021, Catholic schools across the country saw the largest single-year decrease in enrollment in more than 50 years.

Texas has not escaped the trend. From 2019-22, enrollment at Catholic schools in the state fell by more than 5,000 students, or 7.6%. Only four states had sharper declines. Eight Catholic schools in Texas closed during the pandemic, Allmon said.

But, she added, Texas Catholic schools saw an uptick in enrollment among high-income families during the pandemic — which she said underscores the need for a voucher program to help low-income families afford religious education.

“In the 2021 to 2022 school year, because we opened up in-person and didn’t have mask requirements in most places, families with means had choice, and they used it,” Allmon said. “And the low-income lost their spots because their income took a dip.”

The Texas Catholic Conference, which , has pressed for no limits on the number of low-income families supported by a voucher program.

, passed by the Texas Senate on Oct. 12, “no more than” 40% of spots in the program are reserved for students who receive free or reduced lunch and “no more than” 30% to families who earn between 185% and 500% of the federal poverty line. , however, low-income students with disabilities and places no limit on how many of the education savings accounts can go to these underprivileged students — which is why the Catholic conference supports the House version, Allmon said.

More than 62,000 students were enrolled in Texas Catholic schools in the 2021-22 school year, according to the Texas Catholic Conference. In a 2022 survey, the conference found 16,832 vacancies in 122 Catholic schools — with an average of 109 open seats in grade schools and 60 in high schools.

Lois Goudeau, head of St. Mary Magdalene Catholic School in Humble, said her pre-K through 8th grade school currently enrolls 365 students but has capacity for 25 more. The church’s Catholic Christian Education program, an after-school religious education class, has about 800 students, so Goudeau believes more families in her community would seek Catholic education if not for the tuition barrier.

Education savings accounts, the school voucher program being debated by the Legislature, would provide families with state money to help pay for private school tuition and other education expenses. SB1 would give families $8,000 annually, while HB1 would give them 75% of the average amount their public school receives in per-student funding.

On average, Allmon said, annual Catholic school tuition in the state is $6,800 for grade schools and $10,300 for high schools. St. Mary’s tuition is $6,000, Goudeau said.

“We hope that we get a boost from [vouchers] because enrollment in a lot of our private schools, particularly Catholic schools, has been down over the past few years because people don’t have that expendable money, and they’re not looking to spend it on tuition for their students,” Goudeau said. “It is something that the archdiocese and all of our schools and our organizations have been pushing for.”

Questions over church-state separation

For some voucher critics, funneling taxpayer dollars to religious schools raises concerns about the separation of church and state.

The Texas Constitution prohibits using money from the state treasury “for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary.” However, in a 2022 religious discrimination case, the that tuition assistance programs, or school vouchers, must include religious schools if they are available to nonreligious private schools.

The ruling was a major win for pro-voucher religious schools and leaders, but opponents say it raises thorny issues when people’s tax dollars are sent to religious institutions that have beliefs they do not share.

“As a Baptist, I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Pope like my Catholic friends, nor do I believe in the veneration of marriage like my Catholic friends,” said Charles Johnson, a Baptist pastor and executive director of Pastors for Texas Children, which opposes vouchers. “I don’t want to pay for those two teachings in Catholic schools.”

Johnson said his organization represents almost 1,000 churches that share these concerns.

But Allmon said there is a long tradition in Texas of partnerships between the government and religious groups. Texas provides that parents can use at religiously affiliated day care centers and that college students can use at private religious universities.

“We’ve not had any government intrusion or problems in either of those two sectors,” Allmon said. “It’s worked perfectly well to have that partnership for kids under 5 and people 18 and over, so it’s just a matter of applying it to kids 5 to 18.”

Goudeau said her concern with a voucher program would be government intrusion into the private school admissions process. Voucher critics that selective private school admissions may keep special needs or other underprivileged students out of these schools, even if they were selected for a voucher.

SB1 bars the state from taking any measures to regulate the curriculum, admissions or religious values of private schools that enroll students with vouchers.

A student’s potential for academic success and adherence to the school’s Catholic standards are both factors in the admissions process at St. Mary’s, Goudeau added. Along with typical grade-school classes, St. Mary’s students attend religion class daily and mass weekly.

“If we’re allowed to continue operating as we do now, we wouldn’t just accept every kid anyway,” Goudeau said.

A complicated divide

Twenty years ago, church-state separation was the primary concern for religious leaders who oppose vouchers, said Bee Moorhead, executive director of Texas Impact, an interfaith advocacy group fighting vouchers. But more recently, she said, leaders and congregation members have joined Texas Impact primarily over worries that a voucher program would .

“The conversation has gotten much more dire,” she said. “People see this as not just a preference for not using tax dollars to subsidize religious education. They see it as … a nail in the coffin of public schools.”

Erik Gronberg, the Lutheran bishop of the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, said he has taken particular issue with Abbott recruiting religious leaders to advocate for the program. Earlier this month, the governor, who is Catholic, declared a “” and joined a handful of religious leaders across denominations to host a virtual town hall in support of vouchers.

“He was trying to encourage pastors to speak in favor of vouchers and that, from my perspective, was a real crossing of the line,” Gronberg said. “We are called to advocate for justice. We’ve got to advocate for the poor and marginalized. We’re called to talk about issues as they arise, but this is clearly a very partisan issue and something that is very near and dear to his heart.”

Still, some non-Catholic religious schools see merit in a voucher program. Chrystal Bernard, head of Braveheart Christian Academy, oversees a 20-student school founded in 2021 that primarily serves students of color.

Many Braveheart students come from low-income families, Bernard said, and the school has a program allowing parents to volunteer in exchange for tuition discounts. Still, the discounts are modest, and not all families can make up the difference.

“This would be life changing for some of our students,” Bernard said of education savings accounts.

David DeMatthews, an associate educational policy professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said there is not a clear divide on vouchers between the Catholic Church and other religions.

Some religious leaders see vouchers as antithetical to supporting public schools and equal access to education for all children. Others, amid dwindling enrollment, see it as an opportunity to allow more parents to choose schools that align with their family’s religion and values.

“For private religious schools that have a moral underpinning, it’s a really tenuous spot to support a bill that allows schools, for example, to discriminate against children with disabilities, especially with public money,” DeMatthews said. “There’s a moral aspect to this, especially when religious organizations claim to take the moral high ground.”

Disclosure: Pastors for Texas Children and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete .

This article originally appeared in at .

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Roughly 4,800 students are participating in the first semester of Arkansas’ new K-12 voucher program.

A bulk of those kids are attending the largest, mostly-religious private schools in the state. Of the 94 participating private schools, there are also a number focused on students with special needs.

The new data was reported in the Arkansas Department of Education’s to the state Legislature.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

“Arkansas’ Education Freedom Account program has only been around for a few months and already, it’s having a positive impact for kids in the state,” said Alexa Henning, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ communications director. “Nearly 5,000 students at almost 100 schools have enrolled in the program, offering families across Arkansas the chance to choose the school that best suits their individual needs and helping every student have access to a quality education.”

The EFA program was one of the primary components of the LEARNS Act; it was also the most controversial.

The program provides state funds for allowable educational expenses, primarily private school tuition this first year. Approximately $6,670 will be available per account for the 2023-2024 school year (Those who were participating in the Succeed Scholarship Program, which targeted primarily individuals with disabilities, received $7,413). The average cost of tuition at EFA schools is around $7,600, according to an Advocate analysis.

The Arkansas Department of Education allocated $46.7 million in state funds for the first year of the voucher program, but the report, which was submitted Saturday, projects the state will only expend about $32.5 million over the first year. So far, about $7 million has been spent.

This year, participation in the program is limited to certain students:

• Students with disabilities.
• Students experiencing homelessness.
• Foster children.
• Children of active duty military members.
• Students enrolled in an “F”-rated school or school in need of Level 5 support.
• Students enrolling in kindergarten for the first time.

The eligibility pool will be expanded over the coming two years until the program is open to all. The department said it has an opportunity in the next few years to deploy “a deliberate and systematic approach to EFA program participation, including, but not limited to, enacting a lottery system with prioritization for certain eligible special populations.”

The majority of students participating in the program this year, about 53%, are in Central Arkansas; another 16% are from Northwest Arkansas, according to the report.

Of those in the program, 44% of students have a disability and 31% are first-time kindergarteners. Less than 5% of students in the program were previously enrolled in a public school.

The third-party company that processes the payments between the state, families and schools has received $176,853 in processing fees so far — roughly 2.7% of the overall program costs.

Other program spending has been on uniform costs and other “required academic expenses.”

The report brought continued criticism from those opposed to vouchers and the LEARNS Act and praise from those who supported it.

Arkansas Education Association President April Reisma, a special education teacher in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the report should be “deeply disturbing to the tax-paying residents of Arkansas.”

“The department cloaks this funding as ‘School Choice’ and ‘Parental Empowerment,’” Reisma said. “To be clear, Arkansas already has school choice. Parents already have the power to choose the school that is best for their child. The guiding principles for the disbursement of these funds leave too many questions than answers. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to use these public funds to expand educational opportunity, high quality school options, use data to inform rulemaking, and ensure strong fiscal stewardship of public funds by investing in our current public schools with that public funding?”

Nicholas Horton, the founder and CEO of the conservative advocacy organization Opportunity Arkansas, wrote that the inaugural report showed the program was working.

“Arkansas is still early into its education freedom journey, but this initial data is very encouraging,” Horton said. “Although it comes as no surprise, it’s now even more clear that there’s a high demand for EFAs across the state – and this is just the beginning.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on and .

Even more troubling: Our shows that many of these proponents have one particular religious affiliation in mind.

Our home state of is a good example. Under newly passed legislation, Iowa families are eligible to receive $7,598 a year in an education savings account for private school tuition. According to a , all but six of Iowa’s 183 private schools have a religious affiliation. 

A asked 1,000 adults 18 years of age or older whether states should be allowed to subsidize religious education with public funds. Fifty-five percent of Americans said they should not. The major exceptions to this fact: Republicans and evangelical Christians. Majorities of both groups favor the policy.

But our research found that support for school choice programs isn’t just about providing options for families of all religious backgrounds — it is about the unspoken assumption that the beneficiaries of these programs are private Christian schools. Respondents to our poll were split into two groups at random. One group was asked if they would favor using taxpayer funds to support students who attend private religious schools, with no particular faith mentioned. The other half was asked the same question, prefaced with the statement, “Across the United States, there are private religious schools affiliated with the Muslim, Jewish and Christian traditions.”

While 55% of respondents opposed funding private religious education in both versions of the question, Republicans’ support for providing taxpayer funds to religious schools fell by nearly 10 points, from 60% to a bare majority of 51%, when they were informed that there are Muslim and Jewish schools in addition to Christian options. We observed a similar decline in support among evangelical Christians; 65% supported providing public funds answering the generic version of the question, compared with 53% responding to the multi-religious version.

Efforts to pass school choice legislation have risen to prominence as public K-12 education has increasingly become the subject of partisan and ideological conflict over the teaching of topics like gender identity and the history of racism in America. The response in many Republican-led states has been a two-pronged effort to more tightly regulate classroom lessons and library materials in the public school system, while giving parents greater support for moving their children into private schools.

The fact that so many of these are Christian-affiliated explains why providing state funding for private education has been a longstanding goal of the Christian conservatives who form a core part of the Republican Party’s base. But the United States is a . While many Americans are likely familiar with a private Christian school in their local community, far fewer are likely to have encountered any of the country’s 1,300 or so private Jewish and Muslim K-12 schools.

While perhaps the strongest advocates of choice are not considering them in their efforts, non-Christian schools would indeed be eligible to benefit from state-funded school choice programs. This raises the question: Do the most vocal school choice advocates genuinely support educational choice — including by funding Jewish and Muslim schools? Or is “choice” really just code for “Christian”?

These research findings offer some much-needed clarity about the way Americans think about programs that fund private schools on the public dime. When framed in terms of their practical effect of paying for religious education, school choice programs are unpopular with the American public. Going a step further, Republicans and evangelical Christians — the main advocates of school choice legislation — view the idea much less favorably when they’re reminded that “choice” doesn’t just mean Christian.

Ultimately, pulling back the veil on the politics of school choice reveals that the American public is in dire need of an honest conversation about K-12 education. This is one place to start.

Not long after, in Arizona, one of the nation’s most successful charter operators announced it was launching an to faith-based classical schools. Though technically part of the private-school sector, these schools would be based on the organization’s charter-school model and would access public funding available via a new state that gives education dollars directly to families. 

Though the efforts are distinct — the Arizona case brings faith-based education and public schooling closer while the Oklahoma case merges them — they are, in a sense, the logical conclusion of 30 years of choice-based reform. Backers and detractors, however, see “logical conclusion” very differently. Opponents might say they suspected choice advocates were fighting from day one to raze the wall separating church and state. Proponents might say this is an obvious, sensible consequence of American pluralism: Given the nation’s long history of faith-based nonprofits, once government engaged civil society in school operations via chartering, it was inevitable that religious groups would want to participate. 

Like so much today, this issue divides observers along political lines. Indeed, the idea progressives. But those on the political left might consider whether they could support faith-based charters, even if just as a pilot program. 

Part of this consideration should be strictly pragmatic, as it pertains to keeping families engaged with the public school system. Opinion on public education is , with Americans now giving lower grades to schools both locally and nationally than before the pandemic. Today, about one in five the nation’s schools an A or B; only 21 percent of non-parents think American K-12 education is in the right direction. In 2022, Gallup public satisfaction with K-12 schools was at its lowest level in more than 20 years.

Consequently, private school choice is on the march. Half or more of Americans universal vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and homeschooling. One found between two-thirds and three-quarters of adults support education savings accounts, vouchers, and charter schools when provided definitions. 

Today, there are state-level private school choice programs and new programs have recently been passed in , , , , and , with progress in , , , and . These policies are being fueled by a growing array of options. Today, we have private schools, magnets, charters, , , various homeschooling , online schools, homeschooling, , offerings, tutoring, and more. Those concerned about the diaspora from traditional public education should appreciate that growing and diversifying options inside of the public system may be the best, if not only, way to respond to families’ interest in choice while preserving key elements of public schooling, like transparency, accountability, and a degree of democratic control.

The other consideration is more philosophical. Our current politics seem oblivious to the fact that one of the greatest challenges of American governing is figuring out how 330 million people with vastly different histories, traditions, and priorities can live together peacefully. The solution is not erasing our differences or discouraging the flourishing of diverse ways of life. Instead, we animate American e pluribus unum — “out of many, one” — by building systems that, first, allow different communities to be themselves and, second, help those different communities contribute to a broader common good. 

Faith-based chartering could fit this mold. It would invite faith-based groups to participate in school operation alongside secular nonprofits. It wouldn’t force anyone to attend a faith-based charter, but it would respect families eager to give those schools a try. Importantly, it would make such schools, in exchange for public dollars, follow public rules related to finances, operations, safety, and achievement. In total, then, it would contribute to a diversified set of schools that collectively work to serve all students.

What does a faith-based charter look like? 

Faith-based charters do not yet exist. But the idea has for , with some writers suggesting how it be and why it is worth pursuing. That conversation, however, never went far because the explicit language of state charter laws and federal education programs made clear that charters had to be secular. Moreover, a mountain of jurisprudence since the middle of the 20^th century seemed to close the door on the concept: The U.S. Supreme Court held that public schools, as creatures of the state, could not be religious. 

Despite all that, the idea has had legs because it seems to make sense on a few dimensions. For example, dozens of state programs enable families to use public dollars to choose private faith-based schools. Why wouldn’t we allow some faith-based charters? Since those publicly funded private faith-based schools are free from most regulation, shouldn’t we support publicly funded faith-based schools that are subject to more oversight? Moreover, if a brand-new nonprofit with no experience running schools is eligible to run a charter, shouldn’t a centuries-old faith-based nonprofit with enormous experience running high-quality schools be eligible? 

If every other nonprofit is allowed to run a charter, isn’t it anti-religious discrimination to exclude faith-based nonprofits? 

What would a faith-based charter look like? A faith-associated nonprofit would apply to a charter authorizer. It would complete the same application as other interested operators, explaining its proposed curriculum, staffing, transportation plan, calendar, governance, and so on. It would explain how its school would meet various state requirements, for instance related to building codes and safety. It would develop student-performance indicators so the authorizer could hold the school accountable for results. If the application were approved, the school would secure a facility, hire staff, purchase books, and recruit students. It would have to meet operational, financial, and governance milestones prior to opening. Once operational, it would be subject to regular performance monitoring by its authorizer. If it failed to live up to its side of the contract, its charter would be revoked. Its primary difference from other charter schools would be its use of faith elements, for instance readings from its texts or teaching good behavior with reference to faith principles. As a public school, it could not discriminate against prospective students: Like all charters it would be open enrollment.

History repeating itself?

The idea of faith-based chartering may be jarring to those only familiar with public schooling over the last half century. But zooming out, we can see that America has frequently reconsidered the role that government and civil society play in schooling. We can also see that the state’s relationship with faith communities has been frequently redefined in education. Though the history is complicated, we can think of four distinct eras. 

In the colonial days and first decades of the republic, America had no system of public education to speak of. To the extent kids received formal schooling, it was generally through tutors, boarding schools, small town schools, or religious schools. The government’s role was miniscule by today’s standards, and the role of civil society, including faith-based groups, was substantial. 

The mid-19^th century advent of common schools expanded the role of government. School boards would tax, hire teachers, purchase supplies, and more. Though these schools were “public,” they were seldom secular. Teachers often led prayers, and readings from the Bible were common. Interestingly, much of the resistance to this system came from minority religious communities that of how faith was taught; the debate was frequently about Bible and prayers, not whether Bible and prayers. Indeed, the sense that many of these schools were to religious minorities led to the growth of faith-based private schools, most notably Catholic schools. Therefore, this second era can be understood as one of marked growth for religiously tinged government-run public schools and faith-based private schools. 

By the middle of the 20^th century, Supreme Court rulings were separating faith and government in education. and were prohibited in public schools, and faith-based private schools were from receiving most direct public support. We can think of the second half of the 20^th century as bifurcating K-12: in this third era, public schools were almost always run by the government and had to be secular; faith-based schools were private and ineligible for direct state aid. 

The fourth era began in the early 1990s with two policy reforms. First, chartering enabled nonprofits to run public schools. The implications were profound. No longer did “public school” mean “government-run school.” A chartered public school would be operated by a non-government body but function within a system of public accountability and funding. The public system would now comprise an array of operators. Second, private school choice programs, like vouchers, enabled families to direct public dollars to secular and faith-based private schools (vouchers were deemed in 2002).

These two reforms can be seen as leading in the same direction: more families had more ability to choose from among more types of schools. Seen another way, they produced a peculiar outcome: We now have some largely autonomous, nonprofit-run, government-funded schools we call “public” and some largely autonomous, nonprofit-run, government-funded schools we call “private.” The former are charters; the latter can be faith-based schools supported by voucher-style programs. In practice, this means a Montessori, project-based-learning, or classical-education organization could run a school in either category. A faith-based group, however, can only be found in the latter. To put a fine point on it, a faith-based school can receive substantial public funding (e.g., via vouchers) while remaining free of most government oversight, but it can’t join the charter sector and accept more public accountability.  

In theory, we could make this system more coherent. We could require all government-run public schools to remain wholly secular while all nonprofit-run schools that submit to public accountability to receive public funding. All nonprofit-run schools that wanted to remain free of most regulation could stay in the private sector and forgo public dollars. As recently as 10 years ago, this kind of fundamental shift would’ve faced two obstacles — one popular, one legal. First, there was little appetite for big change; public opinion supported local public schools, and most families participated in that traditional system. As recently as , 70 percent of parents gave their local public schools an A or B; that year, the federal government only 10 percent of K-12 students were in private schools. But that system has fragmented thanks to school-choice programs, new models of education delivery, and the Covid era. EdChoice that only 64 percent of students today attend their assigned traditional public schools. The rest are choosing district school, a charter school, a private school, a magnet school, an online school, a homeschool, or something else. Families are increasingly accustomed to finding options tailored to their kids’ needs. Fewer families see the neighborhood public school as the best, much less the only, option. 

Second, the language of education programs was based on a constitutional interpretation that kept faith entirely out of the public system. Since the First Amendment was understood to require that government functions remain secular, and since the provision of public education was a government function, faith-based schools were deemed ineligible to be part of the public system. Hence the requirement that charter schools, which are public schools, remain secular. But this is no longer an obvious legal conclusion. In short, public opinion changed in ways that make faith-based charters a policy possibility, and the Supreme Court’s changed in ways that make faith-based charters a legal possibility. 

Supreme Court precedent

Missouri provided grants to nonprofits wanting to resurface their playgrounds. State policy, however, prevented religious entities from accessing those funds. The Court, in (2017), ruled that prohibiting a faith-based group from enjoying a public benefit simply because it is faith-based is unconstitutional. Three years later, the Court expanded the doctrine in (2020), declaring unconstitutional that state’s policy of prohibiting faith-based schools from participating in a school-choice program. A third decision would do even more to boost the prospects of faith-based charters.

Because Maine is a sparsely populated rural state, some of its school districts don’t have high schools. For generations, the state provided funds to students in those districts so they could pay to attend a high school elsewhere. Maine permitted just about all schools to participate—public schools, private schools, schools in other states, even schools in other countries. But one type of school was ineligible: faith-based schools. Maine justified its policy by saying it was funding other schools to essentially function as Maine public high schools, and since public schools must be secular, all participating schools must be secular. In (2022), the Court disagreed: Once the government makes a benefit available, it can’t declare faith-based groups ineligible simply because they are faith-based. 

Addressing those charging that the Court was forcing states to fund religious groups, Chief Justice Roberts’ Espinoza decision explained that Montana didn’t have to create a program that funded nongovernmental organizations. But once the state did so, it couldn’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. The same logic applies in Trinity Lutheran and Carson: states don’t have to create programs for nonprofits to resurface playgrounds or for students to attend out-of-district high schools, but once they do, they can’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. We should expect a Roberts opinion ruling that states aren’t obligated to allow charter schools, but once they do, they can’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. 

A looming decision for progressives

Opponents of faith-based charters have one major legal argument remaining. There is a grey area between direct government action and government support of varied nonprofits. That is, government activity must be secular while government benefits must be accessible to faith-based organizations. But what happens when the two concepts are mixed — when governments enlist nonprofits to carry out government functions? Since it’s a government-related activity must the performing entity be secular? Or since the organization is a nongovernment body must the government allow it to be faith-based? This is the “ .”

In short, if the nonprofit is clearly carrying out a government function and/or is controlled by the government, then its actions can be attributable to the government, meaning it functions as a state actor and must be secular. Opponents of faith-based charters will argue that public schooling is a government activity and that states use chartering to enlist nongovernmental bodies to carry out this state duty. Proponents will argue that education is not solely a government function (nongovernmental bodies have run schools for eons), that chartering was created to enable nonprofits to operate schools different than government-run public schools, and that faith-based colleges aren’t considered state actors even when they receive government aid. University of Notre Dame professor Nicole Stelle Garnett has ably case.

Though the specific question of whether charter schools can be faith-based has not yet been litigated, a federal appeals court recently considered in a school-uniform case whether charters are state actors. The majority that a North Carolina charter is a state actor, though several judges . The Supreme Court is considering whether to take up the school’s appeal. Further complicating matters, in February, the new Oklahoma attorney general his on faith-based charters. The Governor, Kevin Stitt immediately , arguing that the first advisory opinion — supporting faith-based charters — was correct. And at the national level, choice advocates it comes to expanding the charter tent to include faith-based groups. Obviously, this issue remains in flux politically and legally. But never in the 30-year history of chartering has the approval of a faith-based charter school seemed so possible.

Hence the dilemma for America’s political left. Since the advent of school choice in the early 1990s, the default position for many progressives has been opposition. Standing up for public education, many believed, meant standing against school choice. Even Democrats’ Bill Clinton-era openness to charter schools has waned; today, 38 percent of Democrats support charters. Even putting aside moral and philosophical questions, the left’s opposition increasingly appears politically imprudent. Families are experimenting with and appreciating educational alternatives, and states are creating programs that advance school choice. 

It’s not inconceivable that five years from now there will be more than 100 state-level choice programs supporting millions of students in private schools, homeschools, and other options outside of the public system. The left’s strategy could be to simply vote “no” as this wave swells. An alternative is to support more school options and increased parental power inside a public system of transparency and accountability. That would mean sitting down at—not walking away from—the negotiating table on the issue of faith-based charters. When the Supreme Court eventually rules that states with charter school laws must permit faith-based charters, the left will be glad that they had a hand in crafting those programs instead of standing on the sidelines.

Carson was a bit odd. First, it concerned town-tuitioning, through which families in districts not sufficiently large to maintain schools at all levels can attend private institutions using public funds. Such programs only exist in three states: Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. The case also dealt with, basically, a loose end from previous cases that had reached the Supreme Court: Is choice of a religious school protected based on a school’s “status” — it identifies as religious — but not its “use” — it acts on that religion?

Town-tuitioning is different from most choice vehicles, such as vouchers, which allow funds to follow students regardless of whether a district school is available. Maine argued that tuitioning makes private schools essentially stand-ins for public schools, but that was not central to the decision. No matter what the intention, Chief Justice Roberts stated the simple core principle in the , “The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.” 

Far from a tectonic shift, the ruling was consistent with precedent going back to in 2002, in which the Court ruled that public funding reaching a religious school was not a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as long it got there via families’ free choices. Carson also built on (2017), in which the Court ruled that an institution could not be excluded from a “generally available” state benefit just because it was religious, and (2020), which said a state could not exclude schools from choice programs simply because they were religious.

Viewed against the backdrop of these other cases, Carson essentially cemented the precedent that religious schools cannot be singled out for exclusion from private choice programs, including by rendering religion meaningless with a “use” prohibition. 

But this leaves much still to be resolved. 

The first reaction from Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey after the ruling was to declare that the schools Carson petitioners wanted to attend discriminated against other religions and LGBTQ families. “They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff,” . Frey said that going forward he would “ensure that public money is not used to promote discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry.” 

This is almost certainly the next major frontier in choice litigation: What restrictions can governments put on religious schools?

We’ve seen something of a in Maryland, where the state removed the Bethel Christian School from its BOOST voucher program because the school’s handbook said Bethel believes marriage is between a man and a woman and gender is assigned by God at birth. It also said, “Faculty, staff and students are required to identify with, dress in accordance with, and use the facilities associated with their biological gender.” The state said the policies were discriminatory and, hence, Bethel was ineligible for BOOST. 

The school sued for religious discrimination. It lost in a lower court in 2020, but in 2021 a U.S. district court sided with Bethel. The ruling, however, dodged whether the state had to allow Bethel to follow its beliefs. Judge Stephanie Gallagher held that there was no evidence that the school had ever acted on them, so Bethel was being punished unconstitutionally for the speech in its handbook, not its religion. 

Another possible arena for legal action: Religious charter schools. Charters are public schools but are run by private groups. Carson, and Espinoza before it, may have opened the legal door for groups to sue for the right to establish religious charters. If religion cannot be a reason to exclude schools from choice programs, that arguably includes charters.  

This is a viable theory, but there does not seem to be a major groundswell to act on it, with the idea mainly for . Meanwhile, Nina Rees, president of National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, has against it, saying flatly, “Charter schools, as public schools, can never be religious institutions.” 

Ending school choice programs may also be a target for those who oppose choice in general, or religious options in particular. If choice cannot exclude religious schools, then the only option is to terminate the programs.

That, however, might well be mooted by a broader legal campaign to extend the rationale for religious inclusion in choice programs to all K-12 education: If government taxes everyone to pay for secular public schools, it must allow religious families to take their allocation to religious institutions. Without religious options, public schooling itself violates religious free exercise. 

This is not a new conclusion, but was anticipated by Justice Stephen Breyer in his Espinoza dissent: “If making scholarships available to only secular nonpublic schools exerts ‘coercive’ pressure on parents whose faith impels them to enroll their children in religious schools, then how is a State’s decision to fund only secular public schools any less coercive?” 

The logical answer is that it is not — it, too, elevates the secular over the religious.

Were the Supreme Court to agree with that, unlike the incremental change in Carson, it would, indeed, be Earth shaking. 

Neal McCluskey is the director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.