While the school choice movement has been a popular policy initiative for conservative politicians and parents who are disgusted with the failing and, in many areas, debauched public school system, a closer look at “choice” in education, which includes charter schools, vouchers, and scholarships, may not be the panacea for educational reform as many believe.
One of the latest developments in school choice involves the funding of an Oklahoma religious charter school. The state’s Supreme Court has ruled that the public funding of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is unconstitutional.* While privately run, charter schools are tax financed and “must abide by many of the rules that govern traditional public schools” says Laura Meckler in an article titled “Oklahoma Weighs Nation’s First Religious Charter School,” published in The Washington Post, April 3, 2024.
The “constitutionality” of the case was challenged by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who cited state law that says “charter schools may not be sectarian or affiliated with a religious institution.” The attorney general contended that, if the school is allowed to exist, it would have “unlimited unintended consequences” and thus “the state of Oklahoma effectively has control over the school.”
Drummond said, “That’s the state controlling religion. That is a slope for which there is no end.”
While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has concurred with Drummond’s assessment in the St. Isidore school case, it is disturbing as to why the school’s backers, as well as other proponents of charter schools, do not see the obvious danger of government interference in religious education which necessarily comes once state monies are allocated.
In the past, religious institutions would have recognized the threat to their independence and would have no part in such an arrangement no matter how lucrative. The appeal of private schools has always been that the government has little oversight over the curricula, and that parents have a say in what their children are taught. Many private schools today, however, are little different than their public school counterparts in curriculum offered, discipline, and cultural outlook.
Besides the obvious constitutional issue of forcing taxpayers to support religious institutions, there is another moral issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed that exists not only with charter schools, but public education in general. Why should those that are single, childless couples, and those parents who send their children to private schools be forced to pay for public education? While taxpayers are protected from being coerced to contribute to religious institutions, why are the rights of those who do not use public schools not observed?
While constitutional conservatives have ignored this aspect of tax-funded schooling, there is another troubling aspect of public education. The public school has always been a vehicle for the left’s social-engineering schemes. One of the most egregious of these was Brown vs. Board of Education, which inaugurated the coercive racial integration movement.
It is little wonder why the American electorate has moved decidedly leftward. Several generations of young minds have spent their formative years exposed to some of the most radical ideas that are now presented as normal. At one time conservative commentators spoke about this, but, like nearly all of their other principles (except for their love of war), the right has abandoned this important aspect of American life.
The entire concept of school choice is confused, put forward by its proponents to somehow reform and act as an alternative to public education. Because of its nature – “one size fist all” – a bureaucracy cannot be reformed or offer diverse products or services to its customers.
If reformers want real choice, they should call for an end to public schooling and substitute in its place a decentralized system of education provision, where a wide variety of schools and institutions offer families genuine alternatives. In a market for education, parents can choose their children’s curriculum and also who instructs them.
Of course, a truly free educational system includes home schooling, which would be completely liberated from state interference.
Removing government from schooling would be a gigantic blow against the nanny state and, once again, place the responsibility for the education of youngsters with the family. The societal benefit of such a change would be incalculable.
Choice in education is another example of conservatives attempting to amend the welfare/warfare state. While it has gained in popularity and may receive in the future judicial approval, school choice will not fix public education, which will continue to be a breeding ground for the left. However, the elimination of government involvement in schooling would not only provide families with superior educational opportunities, but would remove a key component of the left’s power and control over society.
Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas
Antonius Aquinas 