The ruling finally puts to rest whether states can discriminate against religious schools in state-funded scholarship programs. Until now, states have relied upon constitutional amendments—born from an idea conceived by Congressman James Blaine nearly 150 years ago—to prevent any public money from going to religious schools. These so-called “Blaine Amendments” were primarily about discriminating against Catholic schools at a time when the Protestant majority was concerned about Catholic immigration. But no more.

And if you don’t think parents want to be able to find the school that’s best for their children, then you haven’t met Kathy Espinoza. Her years-long fight for her children went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Now it’s settled. But just because the legal question is settled doesn’t mean there isn’t still much work to be done. States still need to act, and lawmakers should recognize that parents want and deserve school choice, regardless of school type.

It’s likely that there will be a lot of unhappy parents this fall as districts begin to release their reopening plans. Missouri has over 25,000 available private school seats; some are in religious schools, and some are in secular schools. This ruling means the Missouri Legislature could let parents access these seats by creating scholarship programs that would allow families to choose the best education for them. As of today, lawmakers are out of excuses.

The post SCOTUS Delivers Key School Choice Victory appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has not had the opportunity to rule on many education cases, as there is only one school district in the DC Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. However, he has written essays and amicus briefs on school choice cases. He clearly supports the notion that religious schools and institutions should be able to receive state funding provided that “the funding was pursuant to a neutral program that, among other things, included religious and nonreligious institutions alike.”

Like many states, Missouri has a Blaine amendment in its Constitution. These amendments, originally intended to discriminate against the waves of Catholic immigrants coming from Europe, are used as cover to prevent parents from spending their children’s state education dollars anywhere other than their assigned public school. (For more on Blaine amendments and some additional thoughts on the Kavanaugh nomination, see my colleague Mike McShane’s recent Forbes piece here.) Ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case in 2017 that focused on a Missouri church-affiliated preschool’s access to public grant money for playground resurfacing. While the court found in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, the finding was narrow and Missouri’s Blaine Amendment still stands.

Judge Kavanaugh has spoken approvingly of Justice William Rehnquist and the impact that his writings on the Establishment Clause had on Trinity Lutheran and other cases. He was also part of the defense team when Governor Jeb Bush was sued over the Florida voucher program. It will be interesting to see how this son of a public school teacher contributes to court decisions on education, particularly those that involve private school choice.

School choice will likely take a back seat to other issues in this confirmation process. As Missourians consider a Constitutional Convention in 2022, however, we may be faced with either ditching our Blaine Amendment ourselves or having it done for us.

The post Could This Be a Win for Parents? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You may never have heard of James G. Blaine. He didn’t win. Yet, for more than a century we have been living with one of Blaine’s legacies—Blaine amendments. While he was a senator, Blaine offered an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prevent the federal government from funding sectarian institutions. It was widely known that the amendment stemmed from anti-Catholic sentiment. In 2000, Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy stated in Mitchell v. Helms that “it was an open secret that ‘sectarian was code for ‘Catholic.’” The federal amendment failed, but similar versions would be installed later in 37 state constitutions.

Many state officials have cited their Blaine amendments as a reason that private school choice programs would be unconstitutional. These amendments have also prevented religious institutions from receiving funds for non-religious activities. For instance, the amendment was used to bar Trinty Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri, from participating in the state’s scrap tire program, which helps nonprofits resurface playground surfaces. Trinity Lutheran appealed this decision all the way to the United States Supreme Court and won.

There is still some debate, as my colleague Mike McShane has noted, as to what impact the Trinity ruling will have on school choice legislation. Our first indication, however, is that the court’s repudiaiton of anti-religious sentiment may bode well for private school choice programs. On June 27, the day after the Trinity Lutheran ruling, the nation’s high court vacated the Supreme Court of Colorodo’s ruling in the Douglas County, Colorado, voucher program, which had been found unconstitutional. The case has been remanded to the state supreme court in light of the Trinity Lutheran ruling.

The Institute for Justice, a group that supports school choice, has long stated that Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was relatively strong and has suggested vouchers may not be feasible in the state. It will be interesting to see if the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Trinity case will further impact Blaine amendments in Missouri and other states. We may never get rid of rancor in politics, but this may be the case that helps us say goodbye to Blaine, Blaine, Amendment Blaine, the school choice barrier from the state of Maine.

The post The School Choice Barrier from the State of Maine appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Will the Supreme Court Strike Down the Blaine Amendment? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Free Exercise, Pea Gravel, and James G. Blaine appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

James G. Blaine was the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a Senator from Maine, and the Republican party’s nominee for president in 1884. While historical accounts differ about his personal attitudes toward Catholics, there is no question that he tried to leverage anti-Catholic sentiment to make his way into the White House. He attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to bar aid to the burgeoning Catholic school system that was cropping up around the country in response to the public schools’ emphasis on teaching Protestantism. (Many might be unaware that for a long time, students in public schools would read from the King James Bible and sing Christian hymns). 

While Blaine was unsuccessful in amending the U.S. Constitution, 38 states have so called “anti-aid” provisions in their Constitutions, including Missouri.

Lawyers for Trinity, and for numerous faith groups filing amicus briefs, argue that the application of such provisions violates the First and Fourteenth amendment rights of individuals and organizations. As lawyers for the Institute for Justice put it, “the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, demand neutrality—not hostility—toward religion.” The State of Missouri singled out Trinity, whose application otherwise would have been approved, solely because it is a religious organization even though the “aid” does not advance its religion.

Understandably, many folks reading this might not care about a school resurfacing its playground. But it is important to note that religious organizations provide important social services to members of our community—and to poor and marginalized communities around the nation—with government support. Soldiers use the GI Bill to attend Saint Louis University, and low-income families use Medicaid dollars at Cardinal Glennon hospital. If providing used tires to Trinity Lutheran is unlawfully providing aid to a religion, wouldn’t these other examples of cooperation between government and religious organizations amount to the same thing? 

A decision in favor of Trinity would reinforce a commitment to treat religious organizations neutrally (neither privileging them nor discriminating against them) and would help close the door on a sad time in American history.

The post The Supreme Court Can Put a Nail in the Anti-Catholic Coffin appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A few highlights:

1. 55% of Americans give their local public school an A or B grade, but only 25% of Americans give U.S. public schools as a whole an A or a B.
2. Without prompting, 61% of Americans think that we should spend more on public schooling. When given the actual amount that their local school spends, that drops to 45%.
3. Opinions on Common Core are evenly split, with 42% of Americans supporting it and 42% opposing.
4. 28% of Americans support teacher tenure, and 54% oppose it.
5. 69% of Americans support annual standardized testing of students

The first four findings didn’t really surprise me. The twin phenomena of liking your local school but disliking schools as a whole and thinking that your local school needs money until you’re told how much it spends have been documented by EdNext and others for years now.  The Common Core has been in freefall, so that wasn’t unexpected either.  Teacher tenure remains predictably unpopular.

I was surprised, though, at the durability of opinion on the value of standardized testing. Sixty-nine percent is strong support, and I would have thought with the unpopularity of the standards that many of the tests are based on that would have been a drag on opinion on the tests themselves. It looks like that isn’t the case!

What interested me most as a school choice advocate was public opinion about school choice issues.  The poll asked questions about charter schools, vouchers, and tuition tax credits, and the findings might surprise you.

On charters, overall public opinion is 51% pro and 28% against. When observed by party affiliation, we see Republicans more likely to support charters (60% Pro and 21% Against) than Democrats (45% Pro and 33% Against).

Vouchers are, on average, less popular than charter schools, but interestingly, enjoy more support from Democrats than Republicans. Overall opinion (for a universal voucher program that all students would be eligible for) is 45% pro and 44% against with Democrats splitting 49% pro and 39% against and Republicans splitting 41% pro and 49% against.  When the question is asked about a voucher program targeted to low-income students, the program becomes even less popular, with overall opinion 37% pro and 48% against (with Democrats 42% pro and 43% against, and Republicans 31% pro and 54% against).

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly for those of us in a state with a Blaine Amendment, tax credit scholarships were more popular than either vouchers or charter schools. Fifty-three percent of Americans support tax credits while only 29% oppose them. The partisan split remains though, with Democrats supporting more than Republicans. Democrats split 57% pro and 26% against while Republicans split 49% pro and 33% against.

It is always good to take the nation’s temperature on issues of schooling. School choice supporters in particular should take a moment to reflect on these findings. Perhaps supporters (and opponents) aren’t who we think they are. 

The post Democrats Like Vouchers More Than Republicans Do, and Other Findings from the 2016 Education Next Poll appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This case is part of a broader effort around the country to eliminate Blaine Amendments, provisions placed into state constitutions (including Missouri’s) barring public aid to religious schools. Blaine Amendments are named after James G. Blaine, a U.S. Senator from Maine who in 1875 tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to stamp out public dollars flowing to “sectarian” schools.  At the time, there was a virulent strain of anti-Catholicism in America, and because “public” schools were actually nominally Protestant (they required students to read the King James Bible and sing Christian hymns) “sectarian” meant Catholic, and many wanted them stamped out.

Efforts by Catholics to make public schools more inclusive were met with resistance, most notably in events like the Philadelphia Bible Riots, which were sparked over allegations that schools in the City of Brotherly Love would allow Catholics students to read their own version of the Bible. In response, Catholics began to create their own schools, where they could impart their values on their children.  This, not surprisingly, angered the anti-Catholic bigots who did everything they could to shut these schools down.

Blaine was unsuccessful in his attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution, but was successful in getting states all around the country to put language in theirs. We live with the legacy of this bigotry today, as students look to states for support to attend private schools, many of which are religious.

Interestingly, a case out of Missouri has wound its way to the Supreme Court challenging these provisions (I wrote about it here a couple of months ago), but it is not clear how broad or narrow a decision in that case might be. It could strike down (or uphold) Blaine Amendments in total, or it could rule simply on certain practical applications that might not apply to private schools. It is possible that this Douglas County case could similarly make its way to the Supreme Court, so school choice advocates may have more than one bite at the Blaine Amendment apple.

The post A Setback in the Fight against Blaine Amendments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With respect to a uniform system of public education, Judge Eric Johnson argued “The Legislature can provide for a uniform system of common schools, free from religious instruction and open to general attendance by all Nevada children, and still adopt other suitable means of encouraging education.” Pretty airtight logic there.

With respect to the state’s Blaine Amendment, as my friend Jason Bedrick points out over at the Cato Institute’s blog, the court argued that the state’s Blaine Amendment “was not intended to preclude any expenditure that has an incidental benefit to religion, where such is made for a primary secular purpose.” It built upon this reasoning by arguing that the ESA “was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing financial assistance to parents to take advantage of educational options available to Nevada children.” The fact that some religious organizations might benefit is “ancillary and indirect.” Game. Set. Match.

This ruling matters for those of us hoping to see an ESA program created in Missouri. Missouri has an extremely restrictive Blaine Amendment that libertarian legal scholars have feared would preclude any kind of private school choice program that is not funded through tax credited donations.  If the standard jurisprudence on these programs concludes (correctly, I’d argue, for what its worth) that ESAs are created primarily for the secular purpose of educating children and that religious organizations only benefit second-hand, it might change the state of play here.

All told, last week was a great one for school choice, and I hope that the Judge’s decision will be supported if and when his ruling is appealed.

The post Education Savings Accounts Found Constitutional in Nevada appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Benevolent tax credits are not like economic development tax credits, policies that we here at SMI generally oppose. Rather than try (and often fail) to spur economic development, benevolent tax credits reward individuals who participate in civil society and work with non-governmental groups in their communities to solve problems. This is the type of behavior that we want to encourage, and the type of behavior that we often tax ourselves to support. If people are giving directly to an organization providing a social service, why not give them a break on their taxes?

Promoting school choice through funding vehicles like ESAs and tax credit scholarships has been a huge priority of ours here at the Show-Me Institute, and while these are small programs, they are a great first step to providing quality options for students across the state.

Following some of the rumblings on twitter, it appeared that the primary objection to HB1589 was that it would create “unconstitutional voucher programs.” That claim is doubly false.  Because the programs rely on the donations of private individuals for which they get a tax credit and not direct public expenditure, they will not violate the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment. In fact, all across the country and at the U.S. Supreme Court, such approaches have been found to be constitutional.  ESAs in particular are not vouchers. They are flexible-use spending accounts that allow families to spread funding among multiple providers to create an education tailored to exactly what their child needs.

School choice programs are often knocked for the perception that they take the best students from the public school system. HB 1589 supports programs designed to help students that our traditional public schools struggle to serve. If we will be judged by what we do for the least among us, advocating for better schooling for students with special needs and children in the foster care system seems to be pretty firm ground to stand on.

HB 1589 is now headed to the Senate. Here’s hoping that it continues to move forward.

The post Missouri House Makes Progress on School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But I wanted to take a moment and dig into the historical origins of Blaine Amendments. Specifically, why was James G. Blaine so interested in amending the Constitution? Was he a crusader for the separation of church and state?

To save you the runaround, the answer is no. At best, he and his compatriots were political opportunists who saw alienating Catholics as a winning political strategy in the age of Know-Nothingism. At worst, he was an anti-Catholic bigot. The “sect” that he was referring to was Catholicism. Don’t believe me? Look closely at the famous Thomas Nast cartoon (above) from the era. Yes, those alligators are bishops, the capitol is the Vatican, the public school is under siege, and a teacher is being led to the gallows. Not our nation’s finest hour.

Ultimately, Blaine’s anti-Catholicism torpedoed his quest for the presidency. At a rally just weeks before the election of 1884, where Blaine was the Republican candidate, a speaker derided Democrats as being the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion,” invigorating the Catholics of New York and elsewhere to come out in force against Blaine and narrowly elect Grover Cleveland.

So this is really the question before the Supreme Court, and the people of Missouri: Are we still afraid of rum, Romanism, and rebellion?

Personally, I’m a big supporter of the separation of church and state. I don’t want to see a state religion. At all. At the same time, I believe that the education of children or the use of playgrounds can be provided by a religious organization, subsidized by public dollars administered on a religiously neutral basis, without fear that it will establish a state church. We let people take Pell Grants or the GI Bill to SLU. We let Medicaid patients get care at Missouri Baptist Hospital. No state religion yet. It’s not clear to me why in 2016 K-12 education should be peculiarly sacrosanct.

I hope that the Supreme Court closes this sad chapter in American history and puts Blaine Amendments in the grave. Educational opportunities for millions of children hang in the balance.

The post Are Blaine Amendments Really about the Separation of Church and State? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here are the details: Several years ago, Trinity Lutheran applied to the State of Missouri for a grant to resurface their playground. They were denied that grant because they were a church, and Missouri’s Constitution explicitly bans public support of religious educational institutions. The church is arguing that by discriminating against religious organizations in awarding grants, the state is violating those organizations’ right to free exercise of their religion.

Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that states can give funds to religious educational organizations without violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution—supporting organizations that are doing something to help society isn’t establishing a state religion. In general, these programs were simply required to be neutral toward religion; that is, that any religious denomination or non-religious organizations would be just as likely to get support as any particular religious group would be.

Several state constitutions, Missouri’s included, went a step farther.  Missouri’s constitution includes the following language:

“Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation shall ever make an appropriation or pay any public fund to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination.”

This is called a “Blaine Amendment,” named after James G. Blaine, who in 1875, while he was in the US House of Representatives, proposed an amendment to the US Constitution that said: 

“That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion”

Blaine failed, but that language did end up in numerous state constitutions, like Missouri’s. The court now has to decide if it is constitutional. This particular case matters because Blaine Amendments have been a huge impediment to private school choice programs, and bringing down Blaines would be a huge win for children and families desperate for more schooling options.  

The post A Homegrown Challenge to Blaine Amendments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Myths of Education Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The program was challenged in 2011, because, like Missouri, Colorado has a Blaine Amendment. “This stark constitutional provision makes one thing clear: A school district may not aid religious schools,” the ruling stated.

Blaine Amendments prevent states from directing public funds toward religious schools. Thirty-seven state constitutions have them.

Douglas County School District officials said they will likely ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In 2002, the Supreme Court found Ohio’s voucher program did not conflict with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court found the program was neutral toward religion as it was created to provide educational assistance to poor children, not to divert funds solely toward religious schools.  

In 2004, though, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a state’s Blaine Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Washington’s scholarship program, which excluded theology majors from receiving public funds. Still, the majority of rulings concerning voucher programs and Blaine Amendments have favored school choice programs.

It is unclear how the school district will proceed, but it is clear by the 500 students who opted to participate in the program that parents want a choice in how their children are educated. I will be rooting for this innovative school district, and I hope that, ultimately, #choicewins. 

The post Blaine Amendments: Plaguing State Constitutions Since the 1800s appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yesterday, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval signed a bill that will give all parents in the state a choice in how public dollars are spent on their child’s education. Nevada is the fifth state to adopt an Education Savings Account (ESA) program. An ESA allows parents to direct public funds toward multiple uses including private tuition, online learning, and higher education expenses. Nevada’s program would be different than other programs around the country in that it is not limited to students with disabilities.

To be eligible, a student must have been enrolled in a traditional public or charter school for at least 100 consecutive days. Students with special needs will receive 100 percent of what the state pays for their education, and students without will receive no less than 90 percent—about $5,000 each. Parents can direct funds toward religious private schools and even homeschooling.

Despite some contention concerning the state’s Blaine Amendment, the Silver State’s one-of-a-kind ESA program will not only make education customizable for any Nevada student, but it also will serve as an example to other states in how to reinvent public education.

As Distinguished Fellow James Shuls wrote in his essay on redefining public education in Missouri:

Most people have come to understand a very clear meaning of public education. They think of it as a system of education whereby students are assigned to schools based on where they live. They think of these schools as serving all students in their residential attendance zone. . . . It is time for Missourians to move past our narrow definition of public education. It is time we accept the reality that students can, and do, receive a quality public education from schools that are not publicly operated.

For more details on Nevada’s program, check out this blog post by the Friedman Foundation.

The post The Best School Choice Program in America appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In February, the Show-Me Institute released “Live Free and Learn: A Case Study of New Hampshire’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program,” written by Jason Bedrick of the Cato Institute. Bedrick also discussed this school choice program at an event we hosted at Lindenwood University (see video above [starts at 4:00]). At the time, he noted that the scholarship program was being challenged in the New Hampshire courts. Yesterday, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a big win for the families benefiting from the program.

Blogging about the ruling, Bedrick writes:

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s flawed and unprecedented decision, which had forbidden scholarship recipients from using the funds at religiously affiliated private schools. The lower court held that the scholarship funds constituted ‘money raised by taxation’ and therefore violated the state’s historically anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment, which states:

“[No] money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination. (New Hampshire Constitution, Part II, Article 83)

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court did not address the merits of the lower court’s decision because it held the petitioners were unable to demonstrate that ‘their personal rights have been impaired or prejudiced.’ Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court, in rejecting the petitioners’ standing in ACSTO v. Winn, held that the tax-credit funds did not constitute public money because they had not ‘come into the tax collector’s hands.'”

Like New Hampshire, Missouri has a Blaine Amendment that prohibits public dollars going to religious institutions. That is why this ruling is important for private school choice supporters in Missouri to take note of this case. Because the funding in a tax credit scholarship program does not enter into the public treasury, the funds should not be considered public dollars. For this reason, a tax credit scholarship program may have the best chance of passing constitutional muster in the Show-Me State.

The post Vindication for New Hampshire’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri Constitution contains several provisions that place restrictions on public dollars flowing to religions institutions. The most prominent states:

That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

The Blaine amendment in Missouri’s Constitution has led many to believe that a private school voucher plan could not pass constitutional muster. It seems that the Blaine excuse may be just that, an excuse.

Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin all have Blaine amendments and the legislature in each of those states has passed a voucher program. Of course, voucher opponents invariably challenge these programs in the courts. As we have just seen in Indiana, it is possible for these programs to be upheld in spite of a Blaine amendment.

On March 26, 2013, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s far-reaching voucher program is in fact constitutional. The justices concluded:

[T]he voucher program expenditures do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with schoolchildren by providing an opportunity for such children to attend non-public schools if desired.

The justices were absolutely correct. School choice programs are not designed to benefit schools; they are designed to give families options. Indiana was not the first state to uphold a voucher bill. Previously, 10 of 14 cases regarding vouchers in states with Blaine amendments have been decided in favor of school choice.

Blaine amendments vary by state and there is no guarantee that a voucher would be constitutional in Missouri, but it is about time to stop giving the Blaine excuse for not providing students with educational options.

The post Do Not Give Me That Blaine Old Excuse appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Herein lies the problem: students want to transfer, and have the right to transfer; but accredited schools cannot accommodate all of them. The “Passport Scholarship Program,” which Missouri Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R-109) and Missouri Sen. Jane Cunningham (R-7) introduced in their respective houses, addresses at least part of this conflict. The program promotes school choice in the purest form, and could ease the burden that Turner created for suburban schools in the Saint Louis and Kansas City areas.

Under the Scholarship Program, private Missouri taxpayers would receive a tax credit for donating money to any “educational assistance organization,” which must be private, non-profit, charitable organizations. The educational assistance organizations would administer the donations, and distribute money to eligible students in the form of tuition scholarships. Any student residing in an unaccredited district could then apply for a scholarship to attend any qualifying private school in Missouri.

The Passport Scholarship Program has great potential for success in Missouri because it is a market-orientated solution that limits state involvement. Individual taxpayers personally decide whether to donate,  and the educational assistance organizations administer the funds privately. The government has only a minor oversight role in the process. And students could apply the funds to any private school, religious or not, because the Blaine amendment does not affect private scholarships. Any student receiving a scholarship could actually go to the school of his or her choice. So if our goal is school choice — and it should be — the Passport Scholarship Program is a step in the right direction for students stuck in failing schools.

The post Passport Scholarship Program Is Good For School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Franklin County has and continues to violate the state’s Constitution by allocating hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars annually to fund counseling and antibullying programs in area private schools.

That’s according to Tony Rothert, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri.

The Blaine Amendment of the Missouri Constitution prohibits the use of public funds to support or sustain any school controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination. The Missouri Supreme Court previously struck down statutes requiring that bus services and textbooks be provided to private school students. 

Annie Schulte, executive director of the Franklin County Children and Families Community Resource Board (FCCRB), raised a number of arguments detailing why the program does not violate the Missouri Constitution; unfortunately, none of them are very persuasive. The use of public funds to support a sectarian school is unconstitutional, whether the funds are paid directly to the school or indirectly support the school. The Franklin County program is also not analogous to Title I. Title I grants bypass the state and local agencies and go directly to independent contractors. Because no state or local agency ever controls the funds, they are not “public funds.” The FCCRB, on the other hand, is a local agency and does control the funds. 

The fact that the Franklin County program seemingly is unconstitutional is an illustration of how the Blaine Amendment currently stands as an obstacle to the freedom of school choice for students in failing districts, such as Saint Louis and Kansas City. As University of Missouri-Columbia Professor Michael Podgursky argued, the rigidity of the Blaine Amendment is keeping students stuck in unaccredited schools following the Missouri Supreme Court’s Turner decision. While the Supreme Court of the United States held that a voucher program for students to attend a private sectarian school does not violate the federal constitution, it is clear that a similar program would be struck down in Missouri. If the state cannot provide private school students with books, buses, and (probably) counseling services, a voucher program stands no chance of passing constitutional muster.

It is unfortunate that students at private sectarian schools likely cannot receive counseling services from the Franklin County program, but students who are stuck in unaccredited, failing schools is a much bigger issue. Given accredited public schools’ unwillingness to accept students from failing districts, these students may remain stuck until the Blaine Amendment is repealed.

The post Is Franklin County Violating The State’s Blaine Amendment? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The good news is that two high-performing school districts have offered to take these students in large numbers. These districts do a great job of educating high poverty and minority children, and do so at much less than the $15,000 and $16,000 per attending student spent in Kansas City and Saint Louis, respectively. Moreover, decades of social science research has demonstrated that the types of schools that these districts run are exceptionally good at educating poor urban youth. So why isn’t our legislature rushing to take advantage of this remedy? The districts in question are the Saint Louis and Kansas City dioceses. This high-quality yet affordable option is off the table.

Why? Opponents argue that it is inappropriate to provide public funds for private religious schools. Indeed, strong language to that effect — Blaine Amendments, named in honor of the Maine senator who led the movement — was placed in Missouri’s and some other state constitutions in the late-19^th century precisely to prevent public monies from flowing to Catholic schools.

The Blaine Amendment, and the associated ideology, has warped K-12 education policy. In other areas of policy — including education — faith-based organizations routinely receive tax dollars to provide services for the general public. Missouri students can take their Bright Flight or Access Missouri scholarships to public institutions like the University of Missouri as well as private religiously-affiliated colleges such as Hannibal-Lagrange, Saint Louis University, or Rockhurst. Low-income parents in Missouri can use tax-supported vouchers to purchase pre-school care from religiously-affiliated providers.

In nearly all other areas of social welfare policy, public funds flow to faith-based organizations for social services. This is based on a recognition that government support for a service does not mean the government should be the only, or even the primary, producer. The public interest is best served if multiple vendors can compete to provide services and give consumers choices.

Freedom of choice is the key. In a voucher system where money follows the student to a school that parents choose, government is not favoring one religious doctrine over another. When a student takes his Bright Flight scholarship to Hannibal-LaGrange College or Saint Louis University, the state is not “establishing” or promoting one religious doctrine over another.

Charter schools provide valuable options to parents. The Missouri law, currently limited to just Kansas City and Saint Louis, should be extended to all school districts statewide. However, the charter schools currently operating in Saint Louis and Kansas City have a mixed achievement record. Some are producing above-average achievement gains for their students, whereas many are performing no better, and in some cases significantly worse, than the district schools. Over time, the low performers will be winnowed out. Unfortunately, substantial capacity of high-performing charters is needed now, not 10 years from now.

With each passing school day, the harm inflicted on Saint Louis and Kansas City children grows. The private schools have thousands of seats available for these children now. A remedy is looking us in the face.

Michael Podgursky is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri–Columbia and a member of the Show-Me Institute Board of Directors.

The post Private School Choice and the Turner Decision appeared first on Show-Me Institute.