States are increasingly turning to “school choice” policies. But are these policies a problem for church-state relations?
Before we address that question, let’s get a handle on what “school choice” means. As I use the term, “school choice” encompasses any state policy that enables parents to choose educational options for their children other than direct assignment by the state.
While the United States is not alone in the world in developing such policies, it has arguably experimented with the idea in the most varied ways. Some examples:
- Charter schools, which receive direct public funding yet with a higher level of independence than traditional public schools. Charters are currently authorized (to varying degrees) in 42 states and the District of Columbia.
- Public vouchers (or “opportunity” scholarships), which are state grants to parents who can use the money to pay tuition costs at schools that accept the grants, including private schools. ten states and the District of Columbia have versions of vouchers, but the two most important voucher initiatives are in Cleveland and Milwaukee.
- Tuition tax credits, which allow (1) an individual or business to commit a portion of a tax commitment to a scholarship program for private schools, or (2) simply allow families to take a tax credit for tuition. Credits are available in some form in fourteen states.
Advocates for these kinds of policies present a wide range of rationales. Some argue that fostering parental choice will generate competition, and competition will lead to improved educational outcomes for kids.Others insist that parents who choose their child’s school are parents who participate in that school, which is better for both schools and kids. Still others claim, quite frankly, that a child ought not be forced into a single option when his or her school is failing.
These are controversial claims, of course, and researchers continue to debate the linkages between choice policies and educational goals. But these policies become even more controversial when advocates introduce religion into the picture.
A common argument goes something like the following: The state compels parents to seek an education for their children. While the state provides a free option—public schools—to fulfill this requirement, many parents perceive state-sponsored schools as inimical to their own sincere faith commitments. Yet, private school tuition is beyond many of these parents’ reach, and home-schooling is beyond their competence. So they are in a bind: The law requires something they can’t provide without violating their religious identity.
School choice policies—especially vouchers or tax credits—solve the problem by requiring the state itself to pay for what it compels in a way that maintains religious freedom. A voucher, for example, gives parents a grant so that they can make a choice that matches their own faith. Tax credits do much the same thing by reimbursing some or all of tuition at tax time.
It’s easy to see why this argument would be controversial. Some church-state separationists point to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which they say forbids government support of religion in any way.While the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case called Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, decided that vouchers do not necessarily implicate government in supporting religion (after all, parents are not required to choose faith-based schools), the constitutional debate rages on. And for some critics the constitutionality of vouchers or tax credits is beside the point. They argue that religious education itself is problematic because they are convinced it can be self-isolating and anti-democratic (we take up that claim here).
It’s also interesting to consider that the very policies designed to increase choice may reduce the options available to parents. Public charters, for example, are generally forbidden from having a religious character because they receive funding directly from the state. Yet as a free alternative to traditional public schools, charters may still draw students from faith-based schools. The Henry Institute is exploring that possibility in a recent research study.