A Brief History
A landmark decision was just handed down on June 30, 2020, by the United States Supreme Court. In the matter of Montana Department of Revenue v. Espinoza (U. S. Supreme Court, 2020), The Court ruled in favor of Espinoza that states determining to help fund private schools must include religious schools in that funding (deVogue, & Cole, 2020). Schools may still take the extreme route of not helping any private schools at all; otherwise, this is a huge victory for religious education, and for funding through taxpayer dollars. The ongoing battle for control of student education will no doubt continue into the future of educational policy writing; however, this important step will have implications at the federal, state, and local levels.
Private education has long been at the forefront of the education desires of many Americans. In fact, there has been a significant move recently to privatize education and move away completely from public education. But the early push for school vouchers and privatization goes back to a push for Christian values in education. Religious beliefs were tied to moral living (and rightly so). They could be found in almost all education. Yet eventually the push to separate religion from government became the practice of the land. In a push back, people began desiring private education where their virtues and values could be promulgated above that of the public-school systems. Gradually, through the mid to late 1900’s, religion was completely removed from public schools (Forman, J., Jr., 2007). Ever since the Christian family has pushed for a return to the values that are attributed to Christianity, and as not being present in public schools and their curriculum. Additionally, the finances of the public-school system continue to be the albatross in the room, showing glaring omissions and lacking funding for adequate quality education (Owings & Kaplan, 2019). Teacher morale is down, and the desire to develop professionally is not evident, nor are there funds to support it. This is all in the face of growing discontent in public school education, and a move to private schools.
Because of this discontent, people began to explore charter schools. There was a need for alternative methods of education, differing from traditional public schools in methodology. The charter school movement, “allow communities to create new public schools outside traditional structures” (Geheb, & Owens, 2019, p. 78). They also provided a sense of exploration to the education world that seemed to appeal to many. While these schools grew in popularity, there remained a demand for virtues-driven religious education. The Christian school had been an alternative for quite some time, but it grew in popularity as more and more religious freedoms were taken away from individuals. It is no surprise that this ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court is being hailed as a triumph for the religious rights of many.
Federal Implications
Like all education policy at the federal level, the ramifications have been felt in the political party shift in the last four years. Over 200 federal judges have been confirmed to lifetime seats on various court benches, including two U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by a republican U.S. president and Republican-help U.S. Senate. These judges are, of course, above party politics; however, their ideological leanings in how to interpret the U.S. Constitution have been supposedly ascertained through vetting of prior rulings and commentaries. Betsy DeVos, U.S. Secretary for Education, also has shown a proclivity for privatization of the education system, as she feels leans towards competition in the education world.
The ruling by the Supreme Court opens the door at the state level where education decisions are currently made, but it also fortifies a position at the federal level that is beginning to show a pattern of upholding the freedom of religion in various areas of society. In 2019 the Court ruled in favor of allowing a large cross to remain on government land (Wolf, 2020), and in 2017 the Court ruled a Missouri Lutheran church could receive federal funds to pave their grounds (Wolf, 2020). This trend can bolster lawmakers as they wrestle with policy writing, and certainly it can give Betsy DeVos the fodder she needs to kindle new policy at the Department of Education. In thinking about how policy is enacted at the federal level, it truly is far fetched to imagine lots of rapid change and new laws. This is not the way the bicameral system is designed to run, as it should be difficult to pass law that impacts all the states. Legislators have entire departments and teams that work to write policy that eventually will be presented to congress, and it usually must be written in such a way to pass a bipartisan house and senate vote. The much easier route to policy implementation is at the state level.
State Implications
Education policy at the state level has the potential for immediate implications due to the Supreme Court ruling on funding for nonpublic religious schools. While the ruling was against Montana, The Supreme Court has in effect told every other state that they cannot withhold funds from religious schools simply because of their religious values and teaching (Williams, 2020). This puts states in a difficult position to either cancel all financial assistance to private schools, or to ask state taxpayers to give portions of the tax dollars to religious organizations with whom they may or may not agree religiously, ideologically, or philosophically.
Additionally, much of the money that are doled out by the state to the local schools comes from the federal government. These monies are perhaps impacted in a greater and more direct way by the ruling of the Supreme Court. In Pennsylvania, monies from the federal government are handled differently than monies coming from the state government. All money in Pennsylvania, however, comes from the state. In other words, the federal government gives its money to the states to handle. That is because education currently is deemed to be a state-run system. Much of the direction setting happens at the state level in policy that impacts all schools within its borders (Fowler, 2013). Obviously, some restrictions are to be abided by, such as religious freedoms, and that is where the challenge will come to state legislatures to write policy that addresses those freedoms while distributing funds.
Local Implications
The local school boards will see real impact from this ruling by the supreme court, though it may not be an immediate change. There will be change for the public-school systems, change for nonpublic non-religious schools, and for the private religious schools. Private religious schools have the growing hope and anticipation that funds not accessible before will now be obtainable. One of the key areas might be in the purchase of curriculum. For example, in Pennsylvania, religious schools cannot purchase curriculum with state monies because of the content of the curriculum. They can only purchase non-religious books, which often limits the schools to the purchase of library materials. Another important area that will impact religious schools will be access to funding for underprivileged and impoverished families. Once again, the religious tag currently prevents these families from receiving state assistance.
Non-religious, nonpublic schools will also be impacted by this ruling. There are a tremendous number of religious schools in all the states. With all those religious schools having access to state funding, it stands to reason that non-religious schools will receive a smaller portion of funds do too the dilution of the pot of money. This will impact their ability to assist families with low income, or families that have multiple children in the school. While this seems harsh, it must be considered that the funds are more appropriately being spread across a variety of nonpublic schools. Charter schools could be impacted as well in some states. In Pennsylvania, charter schools could be clustered under the public-school system, having full access to all public funds; whereas, private charter schools may find access to monies from the state much more difficult to obtain.
The public-school systems stand at great risk with this ruling in place from the court. For most states, the education system is set up in such a way that monies to run their school districts are funded through taxpayer dollars. These monies are distributed to local district school boards who use them to infuse education to students and by creating policy that defines what that education should look like. In fact, the only state not to have a school board is Hawaii (Fowler, 2013). Public school systems are at great risk to lose funding due to the addition of religious private schools dipping into the available funds. In some instances, this could happen through state distribution of funds across a broad range of schools. It is also possible to see voucher systems set up that could impact school districts where students desire to change locations for education. In these situations, it is possible to see public schools lose real budget dollars as students leave to attend private religious schools now funded through the government.
The question is, how will this impact writing policy for schools? Certainly, private religious schools will request additional funding from their state. This will drive down costs for education and will increase attendance. It also will impact policy writing on financial aid, and the ability to help families who either cannot afford private school, or have multiple children driving up costs. Writing policy in the public schools will mean trimming budgets and finding ways to spread cost over a broad range of departments. For all these different schools, policy will definitely be impacted by fundraising. The need to find donors to support education will rise.
Implications for the Classroom
The effects of this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will be felt in the classrooms of both public and private schools. First, for the private school classroom, there is a desperate need for additional funding to increase teacher salaries and obtain resources that will make the learning experience more impacting. Many of the technological advances are cost prohibitive for small but growing schools. It is often the case that a Christian school might be sharing use of one 3D printer, thus it never gets fully utilized in classrooms with core material. This is only replicated over and over with regard to technology, including sharing laptops, and not being able to take home devices. The addition of funds from the state could be what is needed to obtain those essential devices. Second, many families are split in sending one student to public and the other to private school. They just do not have the finances to afford tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, on top of the already burdensome school taxes paid for public school. With additional funds to private schools, many families might find a financial break available to use and bring a second or even third child into the private school.
For the public-school classroom, the effects will be felt in classes shrinking as students leave to go to private institutions, or possibly classes grow in size due to teacher cutbacks. Overcrowded classes are a common problem in public schools that might only increase. Another area of concern in a public-school setting are the cuts in budget to specialty classes. This is frequently seen as schools choose to emphasize sports or fine arts. The lesser choice is placed on the table for elimination usually, and this leaves many families feeling like they are getting less quality in their child’s education experience.
A Biblical Response
There are several impacts on the education world that we see from the Bible. These are examples that are given to us in scripture that show a proper way to engage our society; to interact with the culture around us. These are also examples that show education leadership in religious schools how they can interact with schools in the public room. Finally, Jesus Christ said the example for us, showing us why education is important and how to develop students.
The first example Jesus set for educators is regarding the importance of money. More importantly, he set a tone for what should drive ministry. The parable of the talents is a great example for Christian leaders today in what they choose to do with the resources God gives to them. In Luke 19:11-27 (NASB95) Jesus shares a story with a lesson in it about servants who were given resources. Some chose to invest the resources, while one chose to hide the resource for fear of losing it. The lesson is that God desires his servants (his children) to use the resources he gives them. Christian leaders in schools have a responsibility to their school, and ultimately to their Lord, to make the most with the resources that are given to them. A great example from the private Christian School might be that they now receive state funding, and a portion of that is poured back into community efforts to partner with public schools.
Another great example that we were given in scripture deals with the impact and impression we have on the world around us. Jesus has a crowd of followers and interested people sitting around him on a hillside, and he is teaching them. He refers to his followers as salt of the earth, and as light to the world. He explains that his followers have a very specific goal, and that is to point people to God. If his followers are not doing that, he reminds they are not being very effective (Matthew 5:13-16, NASB95). This is all about how Christian educators and leaders present themselves to the world and to the society they are a part of. Christian leaders need to ask themselves if they are separating themselves from the world, or if they are building bridges with the culture around them. It may be inevitable that a Christian private school needs to take state funding, but the steps taken with that money are vitally important. The steps taken to build bridges with local school districts may make a huge difference in the longevity and health in the relationship between the private and public schools.
Future Steps
When one thinks about education and policy, the mind is quickly drawn to challenging and often controversial subjects. Funding for religious private institutions is definitely one of those subjects, and it will continue to be controversial for the foreseeable future. As is known by many, there are two sides to a coin. The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will open doors for many private Christian schools to get funding so desperately needed to survive in this education world. The other side of the coin reveals hardship as budgets are cut, and reduction in staffing as students leave for those religious private schools.
This ruling will have an impact at all levels of policy. The local level, as mentioned, will see changes to the benefit and detriment of both sides of the issue. Though, some might argue competition is good for both sides. At the state level, policy will definitely set direction for public and private school budgets alike. Public schools will trim and cut, while Private school will look to expand and promote advantages. Finally, at the federal level, the administration will continue to shift on the subject depending on which political party is holding office. Legislators will set broad strokes of direction through policy, though perhaps some universal emphases may be stressed such as Common Core and No Child Left Behind. Impact can be felt at all levels, but the action taken by Christian leaders within the schools and school boards will set the temperature for how well their institutions are received by societies suddenly paying to support their religious causes.
References
deVogue, A., & Cole, D. (2020, June 30). Supreme Court opens door to state funding for religious schools. Cable News Network; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/espinoza-montana-religious-schools-scholarship-supreme-court/index.html
Forman, J., Jr. (2007). The rise and fall of school vouchers: A story of religion, race, and politics. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, 77. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/77
Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders. [MBS Direct]. https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780133465853/
Geheb, P., & Owens, S. (2019). Charter School Funding Gap. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 46(1), 72–129. https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=56b9ecbb-4c85-49ac-9243-1b28f130ce26%40sdc-v-sessmgr03
Owings, W., & Kaplan, L.S. (2019). Virginia. Journal of Education Finance 44(3), 334-336. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/722517.
U. S. Supreme Court. (2020, July 2). Espinoza et al. v. montana department of revenue et al.: Certiorari to the supreme court of montana. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf
Williams, P. (2020, July 2). In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court rules states cannot ban public funding for religious schools: The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the conservative justices. NBC Universal. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/5-4-decision-supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-ban-public-n1231389
Wolf, R. (2020, July 2). Supreme Court makes religious school education eligible for public aid. USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/30/supreme-court-religious-school-students-eligible-state-aid/5122877002/
No comments:
Post a Comment