On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was no
longer prohibited for a state to bar private religious schools from
participating in its voucher programs. “A state need not subsidize private
education,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for a five-judge majority in the
case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. “But once a state decides to
do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are
religious.”
AASA submitted an amicus brief to the Court arguing that it
was improper to require a state to fund private religious education and that
voucher programs undermine public schools and the obligation of states to fund
public schools. The 5-4 decision did not surprise us or many legal experts
because by hearing the case at all, which many felt was weak, the Court
seemingly tipped its hand that they were unhappy with the decision by the
Montana Supreme Court and wished to overturn it.
State “no-aid” provisions which bar funding of religious
education exist in 38 states, but 18 of these states already have voucher
programs. Thus, while pointing out how the creation of voucher program
conflicts with a state’s constitution or no-aid clause has been a helpful
argument for public school advocates opposed to these programs, it has not
stopped states from disregarding their no-aid provisions and enacting voucher
programs.
What are the immediate effects of the SCOTUS decision then?
Two states, Vermont and Maine, will have their “town-tuitioning programs”
dating back from 1869 to 1873 respectively, (long before vouchers were
invented) open to private religious schools. These programs have allowed
students in rural parts of the state who did not have access to any public
school to attend any other public or private secular school inside or outside
the state. Unlike voucher programs that started in the 1950s in response to
segregation, these programs are small and specific to very rural communities in
those states. They are not “true” voucher programs in the mind of many school
leaders, but voucher proponents are already pouncing on the opportunity to
claim them as such and ensure parents in these states can opt to send their
children to private religious schools on the state dime.
What else is next? According to the Institute for Justice,
which represented Espinoza, they are looking to use this decision to push
vouchers in Texas, Missouri, South Dakota and Idaho. They say these are the
next big “battlegrounds” for vouchers and legislatures and should no longer
feel bound by “no-aid” causes. However, a look at how these voucher fights have
played out recently reveals that the winning arguments for public education
have centered on opposition by rural Republicans that diverting state funding
away from public schools will hurt rural students as well as concerns about
academic achievement and accountability in voucher programs.
This decision raises the possibility that voucher proponents
could start insisting that it would be religious discrimination if religious
schools are not treated the same as other educational entities when it comes to
state aid; They could try to argue that when new grant programs are created
private religious schools should be eligible for the funding. Meanwhile, they
will also want to be granted exemptions, so they don’t have to meet the same
academic/curriculum, reporting and discrimination provisions as secular private
schools or public schools.
Like other major education decisions, in recent years the
Court has issued it can take time to understand the policy ramifications of a
case. AASA and the coalition we lead, the National Coalition for Public
Education, will remain vigilant in fighting voucher schemes at the federal
level and provide our affiliates with the best arguments and research for
successfully opposing these programs at the state level.