In the April 23, 1960, editorial “Twin Principles,” the paper declared, “There cannot be any real question that payment of tax funds directly or indirectly to support private church schools would violate the principle of separation between church and state.”

Responding via a letter to the editor five days later, James Bick, the president of Citizens for Educational Freedom, noted the error in this claim. He wrote:

When tax-provided educational benefits are given to all children for the non-religious elements of their education there is no violation of the separation of Church and state principle. Aid is given to the parent and child. The parent has the freedom to expend his benefits at the school of his choice. This is the principle under which tuition grants were made under the “G.I. Bill.” The United States Supreme Court used the same principle in deciding the Everson vs. Board of Education Case (1947) concerning school bus transportation.

It took more than 40 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court used exactly the logic laid out by Bick when deciding the Ohio voucher case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. There is no violation of the separation of church and state when parents are provided the opportunity to choose their children’s school, even if it is a religious school.

In a recent Post-Dispatch article, you’ll find another mistake. The reporters writing the article label the MoScholars program a “voucher.” Undoubtedly, they know this is the language used by those who stand against school choice. A voucher implies that the state is giving direct aid, in the form of a voucher, to pay for private school. This is not the way the MoScholars program works. It is supported by donations, and those making the donations are then eligible for a state tax credit. These donations provide education savings accounts to parents who may choose to use them at private schools—but parents can also use the money for a variety of other purposes, such as tutoring, online classes, or special education services, to name a few.

To find out more about the MoScholars program and how you can make a tax credit donation or apply for a scholarship, visit the Missouri State Treasurer’s website.

The post Wrong Then, Wrong Now—the Post-Dispatch and School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is usually ill-advised to try to divine the ultimate outcome from oral arguments, but it was hard not to see a majority of the justices making arguments and asking questions favorable to Trinity.

Justice Kagan, in particular, seemed to articulate a position in favor of Trinity multiple times. First, she remarked:

But here’s the thing. There’s a constitutional principle. It’s as strong as any constitutional principle that there is, that when we have a program of funding—and here we’re funding playground surfaces—that everybody is entitled to—to that particular funding, whether or not they exercise a constitutional right; in other words, here, whether or not they are a religious institution doing religious things. As long as you’re using the money for playground services, you’re not disentitled from that program because you’re a religious institution doing religious things. And I would have thought that that’s a pretty strong principle in our constitutional law.

Later, she even went further, responding to the state’s attorney’s argument that reimbursing Trinity would amount to an endorsement of or entanglement with the school:

I don’t mean to say that those are not valid interests. But it does seem as though this is a clear burden—looked at that way, this is a clear burden on a constitutional right. And then your interests have to rise to an extremely high level.

She continued,

It’s a burden on a constitutional right, in other words, because people of a certain religious status are being prevented from competing in the same way everybody else is for a neutral benefit.

These statements, along with tough lines of questioning to the attorney representing the state from Justices Alito, Breyer, Gorsuch, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts, showed just how difficult it might be for the state to show that reimbursing a religious preschool for scrap tires for their playground would excessively entangle it with a religion. If that is excessive entanglement, several justices pointed out, just about anything that the state would do, from providing police and fire protection to administering public health programs to students, would be illegal in Missouri.

Again, we don’t want to read too much into yesterday’s arguments, but the questions were encouraging. We will know the ultimate opinion of the court by the time it recesses at the end of June.

The post Trinity Lutheran Has Its Day in Court 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, the school’s leaders have submitted a new proposal — and this time they’ve done away with the Hebrew-language specialty. Hebrew would still be an option at the school, but students would be free to concentrate on Spanish or Arabic instead.

It would be very detrimental to language-immersion charters if this board’s policy became the norm, and no charter could specialize in a single language or culture. For example, the St. Louis Language Immersion Schools teach French and Spanish — in two separate schools. This allows them to reinforce students’ exposure to the target language. Students hear the target language in class, but they also hear it on the playground and in the school office. If each school had to offer both languages, French students would end up hearing some Spanish, and vice versa.

If applied more broadly, this policy could make it difficult for charters to specialize, because as soon as a charter developed a program to focus on one subject, it would have to start over and create parallel programs for whichever students weren’t interested in that first course of study.

The post Update on Hebrew-Language Charter School appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“By requiring the students study Hebrew, I think you’re effectively limiting (who would apply),” said Dennis King, a former Hart school board member of 20 years. “So it’s sort of an ethnic school. It’s a school that appeals to a particular culture. . . . I suspect 95% of the kids will be Jewish.”

I hope this way of thinking doesn’t become prevalent in Missouri, because I’m happy about the growth of language-immersion charters here and I’m afraid the argument could be used against them as well. The St. Louis Language Immersion Schools have suggested the possibility of opening new schools in the future. Would they be barred from opening a Japanese school because many students would be Buddhists, or an Arabic school because many Muslims would apply?

As long as the school does not promote religion, there’s nothing wrong with teaching a language that’s associated with a religious group. Public schools do it all the time; Ladue teaches Hebrew, and Bunche teaches Arabic. If public schools can teach these languages for an hour or two a day, charters should be able to focus on the same languages and teach them in more depth.

The post Arguments Against a Language-Specific Charter School appeared first on Show-Me Institute.