Religious Education

podcastED: SUFS president Doug Tuthill interviews leaders of Miami Catholic Virtual School

redefinED staff September 30, 2020

redefinED staff

On this episode, Tuthill talks with Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Virtual School principal Rebeca Bautista, left, and coordinator of special programs Marcey Ayers. The online school is the only Catholic virtual school in the country run by an Archdiocese – a Catholic version of the well-known Florida Virtual School, which provides a robust curriculum to public, private, charter and homeschool families and school districts nationwide.

The three discuss why the school was created and how it enhances existing curriculum options for Catholic families nationwide –as far flung as Alaska. While Bautista and Ayers say flexibility has been the key driver of their success, they agree more flexibility is needed, perhaps through an expansion of education scholarship accounts that would allow families greater customization of their children’s education.

“Before (the pandemic) there was a misconception of what virtual education was, that it was easier or not legitimate … Now parents and schools are realizing virtual education can help students and schools grow …. It’s going to bring virtual to the forefront.”

EPISODE DETAILS:

How “partner schools” can augment their existing offerings with Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Virtual School’s platform and curriculum

How teaching in a competency-based system has allowed the school to better meet student needs

Catholic schools on the creative forefront of “unbundling” education

Legislation changes necessary to bring more customization and flexibility to families

LINKS MENTIONED:

RedefinED: Catholic Virtual School Offers Options to Families Seeking Online Faith-Based Education

September 30, 2020 0 comment

Catholic Schools Coronavirus / COVID-19 Education Choice Faith-based Education Featured News Private Schools Religious Education School Choice

New Florida Catholic schools superintendent: ‘Our schools will continue to be known as the best schools anywhere’

Lisa Buie September 24, 2020

Lisa Buie

Chicagoan Father John Belmonte comes to his new post with years of experience in Catholic education.

The Catholic Diocese of Venice, Fla., has a new superintendent.

Father John Belmonte, SJ, will oversee the diocese’s Department of Education, which consists of 15 schools and 4,777 students. Additionally, he will be responsible for the Office of Religious Education, which supports 61 parishes within the diocese, and the Institute for Catholic Studies and Formation.

redefinED interviewed Belmonte to learn more about his thoughts on the new school year, his own education and role models, and his vision for Catholic schools in Florida and beyond. Answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Q. Brick-and-mortar schools reopened in your diocese five weeks ago. How did things go? What was the best thing that happened that day? What has proved most challenging?

A. Our principals and teachers worked very hard to prepare for the reopening of school. Their preparation has really paid off. The reopening was very smooth. Our students and parents have also cooperated with the safety measures put in place. I visited one of our schools on the first day. The best thing that happened was that one of our first-grade girls very proudly showed me her new unicorn backpack, complete with reversible sequins! Beyond unicorn backpacks, the best thing was seeing all the students and teachers very happy to be back in school. The biggest challenge for the teachers has been providing in-person and online learning simultaneously. They are doing outstanding work keeping students engaged in both formats.

Q. What was your own education like as a child? Do you think it adequately prepared you for life and a career?

A. I like to tell the elementary students that I completed the 27th grade. That comment is usually met with gasps as they consider going to school for decades! I went to public schools in suburban Chicago through high school, then Catholic universities and seminaries through doctoral studies. My suburban public-school experience was different from the public-school experience today. Public schools today tend to be more politicized with curricular initiatives and programs that indoctrinate rather than educate. The education and formation that I received as a member of the Society of Jesus has been outstanding. The spiritual and intellectual formation I received from truly brilliant Jesuit priests and professors prepared me not only as a priest but also as a classroom teacher and school administrator. Also, the opportunity to study overseas changed my view of the world and the church.

Q. Other than biblical figures and saints, who has been the biggest influence on you? What did they teach you?

A. I have been inspired, challenged, supported and loved by some of the best and greatest men I have ever known, Jesuits all, and masters of the spiritual life remarkable for their holiness. Professors and teachers in various fields remarkable for their intellectual honesty and brilliance. Administrators remarkable for their prudence and skill. Men of the church remarkable for their devotion and dedication. Superiors remarkable for their patience, courage and steadfast support. Companions remarkable for their friendship and loyalty. Undoubtedly, I consider myself to be a better Catholic, Jesuit, priest, and man because of so many good Jesuits. My parents, of course, top any list. My father, Joseph, instilled in me an appreciation for family, faith and fun. My twin brother, Joe, younger brother, Matt, and I benefited from his love of sports, family activities, a good sense of humor and lots of friends. The influence of my mother, Suzanne, over my vocation to religious life and the priesthood could not be more significant. She is a model for me of someone who faced a lot of adversity with faith, grace and determination.

Q. What is your vision for the future of the schools in your diocese? What changes do you plan to make to help further that vision?

A. The Catholic schools in the Diocese of Venice are places where we have fostered faith, created self-confidence, supported good decisions, promoted enduring values, nurtured good habits, revered virtues, honored self-discipline, safeguarded emotional and physical health and prized academic achievement and hard work. There are, of course, many alternatives to Catholic schools, but there is no substitute. We need Catholic schools now more than ever. I am fortunate to now serve as superintendent in a diocese with excellent Catholic schools. We do plan to improve by growing our enrollment, enhancing the Catholic school culture across the diocese, and developing our curriculum with Catholic curricular standards and innovative programs.

Q. In the wake of the pandemic, all schools – public, private secular and private faith-based – are facing challenges, including some that threaten their existence. The New York Times recently published a story that said 150 Catholic schools nationwide have closed and that a growing number are in danger of shutting down forever. How do you perceive the landscape for Catholic schools in Florida?

A. Different from other parts of the country, Florida is fortunate to have a well-established Tax Credit Scholarship Program that provides significant funding that makes Catholic education available to families that would not otherwise be able to afford it. Even more important to the future of Catholic schools in Florida are the strong Episcopal and Catholic school leaders who provide authentic Catholic school culture and maintain the highest educational standards. The performance of Catholic schools during the pandemic in the spring as well as this school year with our successful reopening is evidence of the great leadership we enjoy in our Florida Catholic schools.

Q. What do you think can be done to make sure Florida Catholic schools are able to survive, both over the short term and long term?

A. When was the last time you heard of the best school in the area having to close due to lack of interest? As long as Catholic schools provide authentic Catholic school culture with a relentless focus on mission, we will have places where children are introduced to the truth, beauty and goodness that is the foundation of our faith and our future. Our schools will not simply survive but thrive. Our schools will continue to be known as the best schools anywhere.

More about Father John Belmonte, SJ

A native Chicagoan, Belmonte earned his bachelor’s degree in history from Marquette University in Milwaukee in 1985. Upon graduation, he entered the Society of Jesus in St. Paul, Minnesota, and pronounced vows in 1987. Two years of philosophy and humanities studies at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, followed.

In preparation for ordination to the priesthood, he completed his theological studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, graduating with the baccalaureate in sacred theology in 1995. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1996 in Milwaukee. In 1997, he completed a licentiate in sacred theology with a concentration in sacred scripture at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In 2006, Belmonte completed the doctoral program in educational leadership and policy studies at Loyola University Chicago. While working on his doctorate from 1999 to 2003, he served as the director of pastoral ministry at St. Ignatius College Prep in Chicago. From 2004 to 2010, he served as principal of the Jesuit college prep high school in Milwaukee, Marquette University High School.

He served as superintendent of Catholic schools for the Diocese of Joliet from 2010 to 2020 and in 2013 was elected to the board of the National Catholic Educational Association, where he served until June 2020. From 2011 to 2018, he served as a chaplain at Wrigley Field. If pressed, he does take some credit for the 2016 World Series Championship.

You can follow him on Twitter @Father_Belmonte. You can download, Created in Your Image, the Catholic photo sharing app he created with a marketing team in Chicago to (re)engage young Catholic parents.

September 24, 2020 0 comment

Blog Guest Commentary and Opinion Education and Public Policy Education Choice Education Legislation Featured Jack Coons Parent Empowerment Private Schools Religious Education School Choice

In Espinoza’s wake, is the Blaine bane at risk?

John E. Coons July 7, 2020

John E. Coons

“Like to one more rich in hope.”

Twelfth Night, Shakespeare

The media are calling the long-awaited U.S. Supreme Court decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue a victory for “conservatives.” The Court has liberated a few low-income Montana families from conscription by the state and the teachers union, and yet we hear this rescue is “conservative.”

It is, I concede, an act of conservation, preserving the basic legal authority of the poor over their own children. These parents are, to a limited degree, made free to participate in the great school market. It is a victory for the lower-income family – but conservative?

Could it be that our English language is, for this scenario, simply lacking in resource to describe the reality? If you don’t like the judicial outcome of some dispute, you are free to call it whatever you think will give it a black eye in your own intellectual neighborhood. Hence, “conservative” we shall hear.

Last week’s decision is a powerful, if very limited, reaffirmation of the basic constitutional right, authority, and power, even of low-income parents, to decide just what style and content of formal schooling their child will experience – what teacher we shall allow to instruct their child in the skills she or he may need and what version of human origin and personal perfection will be delivered to these young minds for whom we are so full of hope.

The decision reminds us that 95 years ago, a case titled Pierce v. Society of Sisters et al. gave America the basic precept that parents – not the State – have the authority to decide where Susie goes to school. But a fundamental problem has remained: If you are not well-off, how can you exercise that authority by paying tuition? And, if you can’t do so, will the government that makes school compulsory leave you helpless with no option but P.S. 42? Must Susie go where strangers – i.e., “the State” – decide to send her?

So far in history, government has shown little interest in assisting the exercise of your parental authority. The primary concern of its legislatures and its governors has been to keep the teachers union electing them.

The Montana decision will not by itself end this great shadow on human liberty and authority. But the majority opinion justifies hope for development of ever more radical motions (“conservative,” if you prefer). The majority opinion by the chief justice relies exclusively upon the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, extended by the 14^th Amendment to limit the states.

One can wonder (“conservatively”?) about the regimes of public schooling born of 19^th century anti-Romanism by which schools became mandatory, but those elite who could afford it could, and still do, go private or religious at their choice.

Is it still constitutionally sound for a state to make schooling a parental duty, but then to protect choice only for the well-off? Will the Court let the inner-city “public” school last forever it its captive mission, thus saving the bacon for officers of the teachers union?

Talk to your state legislator – and stay tuned to the conservative Court.

July 7, 2020 0 comment

Analysis Courts Education Choice Education Equity Education Legislation Featured Parental Choice Private School Scholarships Private Schools Religious Education School Choice

Court lays to rest age-old debate with Espinoza decision

Patrick R. Gibbons July 1, 2020

Patrick R. Gibbons

After more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court finally has determined that Blaine amendments, which were created in the late 19^th century under a wave of anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic bias, violate the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise clause.

“A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” ruled the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision this week.

Montana’s school choice program became the first tax credit scholarship to be struck down by a state supreme court, but not the first private school choice program to be struck down because of a “Blaine Amendment.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling reverses the Montana Supreme Court, arguing the state’s “No Aid” provision violates the rights of parents, students and religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling is in step with the Trinity Lutheran (2017) decision which argued denying grants for playground resurfacing simply because the institution was religious was unconstitutional.

Though the Court ruled that the Blaine Amendment violates the Free Exercise clause, it declined to rule whether it also violated the Establishment Clause or Equal Protections Clause.

Not surprisingly, school choice opponents are up in arms about the decision.

“… the court has made things even worse opening the door for further attacks on state decisions not to fund religious schools,” said National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García in an NEA blog post.

But the court’s decision does nothing of the sort. The decision to create and fund education scholarships still falls to the people.

Other school choice opponents are arguing the decision erodes separation of church and state.

Ron Meyer, lawyer for the Florida Education Association, went so far as to state in an interview with the Miami Herald, “It’s another chipping away of the free exercise of religion.”

But the decision falls in line with a long-standing recognition of religious neutrality required of governments. Though many of these cases deal with the Establishment Clause rather than the Free Exercise Clause, they demonstrate this long-standing precedent on religious neutrality.

The first case to apply the Free Exercise clause to a state matter was Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which reversed a criminal conviction of three Jehovah’s Witnesses for proselytizing door-to-door without a state license. In a unanimous decision the court ruled:

“Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act.”

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the court defined the Establishment Clause beyond simply establishing a national church by declaring the clause prohibited the aid of one religion or even all religions. However, the court still upheld public bus fare reimbursements to parents sending their children to Catholic schools because the reimbursement was available to all. Regarding New Jersey’s publicly funded programs, the court ruled:

“Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.”

In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held Ohio’s voucher program “does not offend the Establishment Clause” because the program was neutral with respect to religion.

As with Zelman, several other national cases support tax exemptions and other public benefits for seemingly religious activities, but only so long as the programs pass the “Lemon Test.”

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) established the “Lemon Test,” a three-part test to determine if a program violates the Establishment Clause. The test requires the program to have a secular purpose, to not advance or inhibit any particular religion, and to not excessively tangle government with religion. In Lemon, the court allowed state subsidies of textbooks, educational materials and even teacher salaries at private schools in Pennsylvania.

Mueller v. Allen (1983) upheld a Minnesota tax law that allowed individuals to deduct parochial school expenses. The Supreme Court ruled the program was neutral with respect to religion since the tax deduction was available to all, and that helping to fund education (even through tax deductions) was a secular purpose.

Agostini v. Felton (1997) allowed public funds to pay the salaries of public school teachers educating economically disadvantaged children, including private religious schools. This landmark ruling reversed Aguilar v. Felton (1985), which held that paying public school teachers to teach parochial school students was “excessive entanglement” with religion. Agostini reversed that decision and determined the program was neutral with respect to religion and that the purpose of educating disadvantaged children was a secular one.

Deference to religious neutrality flows down to the state courts as well.

Florida cases such as Koerner v. Borck (1958) argued that, “State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them.”

Meanwhile, in Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Florida, Inc. (1970), the Florida Supreme Court ruled on a tax exemption:

“A state cannot pass a law to aid one religion or all religions, but state action to promote the general welfare of society, apart from any religious considerations, is valid, even though religious interests may be indirectly benefited.”

Espinoza isn’t deviating from the U.S.’s “separation of church and state,” as critics have misunderstood. The ruling follows a long history of allowing religious institutions and persons to benefit from public programs, in this instance extending that right to K-12 education where powerful opponents attempted to carve out an exemption.

A fight over how much religion can be taught in a private school may be around the corner. But that is a fight for another day.

July 1, 2020 1 comment

Courts Education and Public Policy Education Choice Education Legislation Featured News Parent Empowerment Parental Choice Private Schools Religious Education

Supreme Court in Espinoza ruling opens door to state funding for religious schools

Lisa Buie June 30, 2020

Lisa Buie

Kendra Espinoza of Kalispell, Montana, lead plaintiff in the case, with her daughters Naomi and Sarah outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in January.

In a landmark decision today on school choice, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Montana Department of Revenue’s shutdown of a tax-credit scholarship program for low-income students is unconstitutional, potentially opening the door for states to enact such programs for students to attend private faith-based schools.

The court said in its 5-4 decision on Espinoza vs. the Montana Department of Revenue, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that the Montana Department of Revenue cannot disqualify religious schools simply because of what they are.

“A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” the opinion said.

The ruling also stated:

“Drawing on ‘enduring American tradition,’ we have long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children … Many parents exercise that right by sending their children to religious schools, a choice protected by the Constitution.”

Roberts was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

“The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to parents who want to choose the best school for their children, including religious schools,” said Institute for Justice senior attorney Erica Smith, who was co-counsel on the case. “This is a landmark case in education that will allow states across the country to enact educational choice programs that give parents maximum educational options.”

Organizations that support education choice praised the decision.

“It’s a good news day for those who love the freedoms we enjoy in this country and seek to advance and preserve those freedoms,” said Leslie Hiner, leader of the Legal Defense & Education Center for the nonprofit advocacy group EdChoice. “Today the Supreme Court has re-affirmed its role as the guardians of our Constitution. The Montana Supreme Court has disregarded the U.S. Constitution, and in particular the First Amendment’s clause protecting our right to the Free Exercise of whatever faith we choose as individuals, when it struck down a modest school choice program that allowed parents to choose any school, religiously-affiliated or not, for their children’s education.”

The case started in 2015, when the Montana Legislature enacted a program that provided a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for taxpayers who donated to a Student Scholarship Organization. That meant a Montana resident could donate to a scholar organization, and in turn, would receive a tax credit for the donation.

The Student Scholarship Organization used the donated money to provide scholarships to students to attend private schools, including private schools affiliated with a religion.

Shortly after the program was enacted, the Montana Department of Revenue promulgated an administrative rule (“Rule 1”) prohibiting scholarship recipients from using their scholarships at religious schools, citing a provision of the state constitution that prohibits “direct or indirect” public funding of religiously affiliated educational programs.

Kendra Espinoza and the two other mothers filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the rule. The trial court determined that the scholarship program was constitutional without the rule and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Department of Revenue argued that the program is unconstitutional without Rule 1. The Montana Supreme Court agreed with the Department and reversed the lower court.

At issue in the case are Blaine Amendments, also called “No Aid” clauses, which are provisions in 38 state constitutions, including Florida’s, that bar public aid to religious organizations. They get their name from James G. Blaine, a congressional representative and later senator and presidential nominee from Maine who unsuccessfully attempted to amend the U.S. constitution in 1875 to include “anti-aid” language onto the end of the first amendment. Where he failed at the federal level, many states inserted Blaine Amendments into their constitutions. As a result, Blaine Amendments frequently act as state-level barriers against school choice.

“I am thrilled that the courts ruled in favor of the Constitution and maintained a parent’s right to choose where their children go to school,” Espinoza said in a news release issued by the Institute for Justice. “For our family, this means we can continue to receive assistance that is a lifeline to our ability to stay at Stillwater. For so many other families across America, this will potentially mean changing lives and positively altering the future of thousands of children nationwide. What a wonderful victory.”

The win and the promise of continued scholarships is a significant boost to Espinoza, who has had to work multiple jobs, including cleaning houses and doing janitorial work, to afford her daughters’ tuition payments at a private Christian school in Kalispell. Kendra transferred her two daughters to Stillwater Christian School after they struggled in their public school. Montana’s scholarship program has helped Kendra and families across the state keep their children in the school that works best for them.

“It’s been a century-and-a-half since the bigoted Blaine movement took root in state constitutions throughout the country,” IJ Senior Attorney Richard Komer, who argued the case before the Court said in the news release. “Today’s decision shows that it is never too late to correct an injustice, even one with as long and ignoble a pedigree as this one.”

Today’s decision will affect most of the 14 states that have strictly interpreted their state constitution Blaine Amendments to bar scholarships to children at religious schools. For decades, the creation and expansion of school choice programs have been inhibited by legislative concerns that they might conflict with state constitutions. Those concerns are now removed with today’s decision in Espinoza.

June 30, 2020 0 comment

Catholic Schools Coronavirus / COVID-19 Education Choice Family Empowerment Scholarship Featured Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Gardiner Scholarship News Religious Education School Choice

Catholic school closure an SOS for private schools in pandemic

Ron Matus May 26, 2020

Ron Matus

St. Joseph Academy families have launched an effort to save the school, where 78 of 162 K-8 students participated in the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship or Family Empowerment Scholarship programs for lower-income students.

An 82-year-old Catholic school in Florida has abruptly announced its closure, another telling sign that COVID-19 is eroding the financial ground beneath private schools.

At the beginning of the school year, the Catholic Diocese of Orlando had been discussing the possibility of revamping the St. Joseph Academy in Lakeland, Florida, a half-hour east of Tampa. But in a letter to parents Friday, the Very Rev. Timothy LaBo, pastor of St. Joseph Church, said the financial devastation wrought by the pandemic quickly led to a “serious impact on our re-enrollment numbers.”

“What we could not have imagined was the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect upon our world in such a short time,” LaBo wrote in the letter obtained by Lakeland Now.

The closure of the K-8 school shocked St. Joseph parents, who immediately launched an effort to save the school. But it’s not a surprise to those watching private schools across America struggle as parents lose jobs, businesses close and charitable contributions evaporate.

A survey by Step Up For Students, the nonprofit scholarship funding organization that hosts this blog, found 73 percent of Florida private schools said they are experiencing declines in re-enrollment last year, and 58 percent said they’re worried about their viability for the coming school year. The research and advocacy group EdChoice got similar results when it surveyed private schools nationwide last month. More than 20 million Americans lost their jobs in April, including 893,000 in Florida.

The Sunshine State has one of the biggest private school sectors in the country, and some of the nation’s biggest school choice programs. But those programs are primarily for lower-income students and students with special needs. It remains to be seen how much they will help private schools trying to retain working-class and middle-class parents who may be forced, in coming months, to make agonizing decisions about their children’s educations.

Seventy-eight of St. Joseph Academy’s 162 K-8 students used the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship or Family Empowerment Scholarship for lower-income students, while 26 used the Gardiner Scholarship or McKay Scholarship for students with special needs. (The FTC, FES and Gardiner programs are administered by nonprofits like Step Up.)

To date, the most meaningful government relief for private schools has come from the Paycheck Protection Program, which offer a two-month respite for small businesses and nonprofits. Other federal relief streams for education are aimed primarily at public schools, and attempts to steer a more equitable share to private schools has met with relentless pushback.

Other potential remedies, including the possibility of temporary tuition tax credits, have so far generated little debate. Likewise for the potential negative impacts on public schools, which will likely have to absorb former private school students in the face of massive financial and logistical challenges.

May 26, 2020 2 comments

Analysis Courts Education and Public Policy Education Choice Education Legislation Featured Private Schools Religious Education School Choice

Analysis: Montana scholarship program fulfills a public purpose in providing K-12 education

Matthew Ladner January 24, 2020

Matthew Ladner

Editor’s note: The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral argument in the latest chapter of the battle over the use of public funding for religious schools. Supporters of such funding argue that the government should not be allowed to discriminate against religious families and schools, while opponents warn that requiring the government to allow public funds to be used for religious schools could harm public education. redefinED executive editor Matt Ladner shares his thoughts in today’s post. Stay tuned for an analysis from Leslie Hiner, vice president of legal affairs at EdChoice, coming next week.

I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on television. Nevertheless, the transcript of the Espinoza vs. Montana oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court make for fascinating reading.

In 2015, the Montana Legislature passed a small scholarship tax credit under which taxpayers donate to groups providing scholarships to students wishing to attend private schools. The state provides the donor with a credit against their state tax burden and the nonprofit collects funds to provide scholarship aid to eligible families.

After the Montana program passed, the Montana Department of Revenue made an administrative ruling that the scholarships could not be used at religious private schools. The amendment reads:

The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination. This section shall not apply to funds from federal sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.” (Montana Const. Art. X, § 6)

A group of Montana mothers challenged the administrative ruling in state court, noting that the position of the Montana Department of Revenue was contrary to a number of U.S. Supreme Court rulings requiring government neutrality toward religious groups. The Montana Supreme Courts ruled against the mothers and struck down the entire program. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, let’s get a few things out of the way.

The Montana Department of Revenue ought not to have made this ruling in the first place. The Montana Legislature did not make an appropriation, and the purpose of what it did was not to aid any church or school, but rather to aid students and families.

Read the argument in its entirety, but in my book, the crucial exchange came in a question from Justice Kavanaugh to the attorney defending Montana’s action:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But this is a – this is a school, in education, there satisfies the compulsory education laws of the state, correct?

UNIKOWSKY: That’s true.

This exchange reveals that the scholarship program fulfills a public purpose in providing a K-12 education to students. For however long Montana has had compulsory K-12 attendance laws is the same period that attendance at a private school has satisfied that state requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court has established a standard of government neutrality toward religious groups, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer being the most recent. Thus, a Montana fire department would be engaging in unconstitutional religious discrimination if it refused to put out a fire in a burning place of worship for fear of “aiding” religion.

Several justices further noted that if Montana decided to establish a scholarship program but then decided to strike it down based upon the race of the recipients, that would represent unconstitutional discrimination. Why, they asked, should the Montana Supreme Court be allowed to strike down this neutral program simply because some of the families would choose a religious education?

Disbanding a program simply because some of the beneficiaries would be religious lies at the heart of this case.

The Institute of Justice’s Dick Komer summed it up well in his closing:

What we’re saying here is that Trinity – what Trinity Lutheran says, the state can’t discriminate on the basis of religion. The decision is crystal clear when you read it that that is what they are doing in this case. They focus on the religious affiliation or religious nature of the schools. They are not talking about what the schools do. They are talking about what the schools are.

Second, Zelman has already answered the question about who this program is aiding. It’s not aiding the schools. It is aiding the parents. You have a choice to make about the parents here. You can either view them as mere inconsequential conduits through which public funds flow to the religious schools they choose or you can regard them, as you did in Zelman, as free and independent decision-makers who are being given the power to choose a religious education or a secular education in private schools.

We’ll learn the ruling of the justices later this year.

January 24, 2020 0 comment