I will seldom discuss my religious background and beliefs on this site (I talk about my religious perspectives and work, and how and why they have—and haven’t—evolved over the years, in an article on another site), but a decision this week by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approving a taxpayer-funded Catholic charter school has driven me to make a public statement: I am a Catholic Christian, living in Oklahoma, and I unequivocally oppose using public money to fund a state-sponsored Roman Catholic charter school.
To put my religious position into perspective—and to forestall accusations from my co-religionists that “of course anyone who opposes book bans would hate the Church”—I’ll quickly establish my Catholic bona fides: I attend Mass 3–4 times per week, I taught RCIA classes (for people interested in becoming Catholic) for years (and in fact filled in teaching the now-OCIA class just over a week ago), and my wife and I run the food ministry for our parish. While my theology and spirituality may not be to the liking of many conservative Christians—and while this is not the first time I’ve stood up against corruption in Christian institutions (see, for example, here and here)—anyone who would accuse me of being anti-Christian or anti-Catholic would be at the very best wildly inaccurate.
All this is to say that my resistance to this push by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa for a publicly-funded Catholic virtual charter school is a faithful resistance. But make no mistake: grounded in my Christian beliefs, my resistance is staunch, committed and well-informed.
My opposition to a public Catholic school is rooted in several points.
Constitutional and Legal Issues
Charles J. Russo gives a good overview of the legal arguments being used to promote the use of school vouchers for private (and, more specifically, religious) school tuition. In short, the Supreme Court has increasingly ruled that it is constitutional to give parents public money to send their children to faith-based private schools when these children would benefit more from the private schooling than the public educational opportunities available in the area. These rulings have emboldened Republican politicians—such as Texas’ Greg Abbott, who spoke exclusively at Christian schools when touting his school voucher plan—to promote using public money to support faith-based education. The decision in Oklahoma is a natural progression of this ideology: if it is constitutional to use public money for tuition at religious schools, then it must be constitutional for a state to effectively operate a religious school (at least by allowing a religious group to operate such a school under the auspices of the state).
This leads directly into a battle over the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” While the previous Attorney General of Oklahoma—who proclaimed in a speech that American jurisprudence must be based “on God the Creator,” and that Americans must fight for a “God-based country”—gave a legal opinion in late 2022 stating that forbidding publicly-funded religious schools is itself a violation of the First Amendment, the current AG withdrew that opinion and said after the charter school decision that “the approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers.”
The law to which the current AG refers is Oklahoma Senate Bill 516—ironically signed into law by the governor on the same day as this decision—which states, “A charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations. A sponsor may not authorize a charter school or program that is affiliated with a nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution.” Related is the Blaine Amendment—added, coincidentally, to the Oklahoma state constitution in 1906 to block state funding to Catholic schools—which forbids using state funds for religious purposes; this amendment was upheld by a significant majority of Oklahoma voters in 2016, refuting current Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters’ claim that a public Catholic school is “the will of the people.”
Establishing a (Christian) Religion
Remember the First Amendment prohibits the government establishing a religion. “This clause,” Cornell Law School says, “not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.” Does the Oklahoma Catholic charter school decision violate this clause? If the decision—and therefore school options and funding—are applied evenly, it could conceivably be argued that the Oklahoma decision does not violate the Establishment Clause (this is almost certainly what the state and Catholic dioceses will argue). The problem, however, is that Oklahomans are very unlikely to allow equal access for all religious groups.
Take, for example, Oklahoma’s experience with Islam. In 2010 a state representative, claiming Muslims come to America to take away “liberties and freedom from our children” and therefore the country is engaged in “a war for the survival of America,” wrote a bill outlawing Shariah law; it passed with over 70 percent of the vote, but was struck down in federal court. Still more, the current chair of the Oklahoma GOP has called Islam a “cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out” and once formed a “counterterrorism caucus” to work against Muslim civil rights groups. Within such a climate, would Muslim groups be able to successfully launch a state Islamic charter school, and would parents be able to easily and freely enroll their children in such a school, or would they encounter government-created obstacles not faced by the Catholic dioceses?
To stretch the point (much) further, if the Satanic Temple applies to open a state-funded “Baphomet Satanic Virtual Charter School,” will they receive the same governmental support Catholics have received? In 2014, Archbishop Coakley of Oklahoma City petitioned city officials to block a Satanic event, and reportedly said the group’s agenda “has no place in our society.” I am in no way an admirer of the Satanic Temple, but the point stands: if Oklahoma is to adhere to both the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and state law, it will need to give its support to all religious groups meeting the legal requirements for opening a charter school—and the Catholic dioceses, if they in fact are acting in support of “religious freedom,” would need to at least voice no opposition if they wish to maintain their integrity.
Such openness is unlikely. We can see the Oklahoma government’s real understanding of the Establishment Clause in a public prayer given by Governor Kevin Stitt after he was reelected in 2022 (emphases added):
Father, we just claim Oklahoma for You. Every square inch, we claim it for You in the name of Jesus. Father, we can do nothing apart from You. We know (we all) battle against flesh and blood, against principalities of darkness. Father, we just come against that. We just loose Your will over our state right now in the name of Jesus…
We just thank You. We claim Oklahoma for You. (With) the authority that I have as governor, and the spiritual authority and the physical authority that You give me, I claim Oklahoma for You, and we will be a light to our country and to the world, right here…
We thank you that Your will is done on Tuesday, and Father, that You will have Your way with our state, with our education system, with everything within the walls behind me and the rooms behind me, Lord, that you will root out corruption, that You will bring the right people into this building, Father, from now on.
It is very hard to believe a non-Christian religious group would be “given a fair shake” in such a religious and political climate.
Educational Standards and Funding
Oklahoma’s educational system is notoriously poor in every sense of the word: the state currently ranks 49th in overall education, and 47th in per-pupil funding. The requirements to become a public school teacher in Oklahoma are astonishingly low: a high school diploma and “distinguished qualifications” in their field. What counts as a distinguished qualification? Among the Oklahoma State Board of Education members appointed by the governor at the beginning of the year, none are educational professionals—one, a homeschooling mother who resigned from the board after failing to attend any meetings, was then replaced by the operator of a small-town Christian daycare. Similarly, while the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board had three members with professional educational experience, one was suspiciously replaced before the meeting and a second announced his resignation after. All of this presents two issues: the educational standards that would be set and met by a public Catholic virtual school in Oklahoma, and the way in which funding might play into this.
Let’s begin with funding. Oklahoma spends on average $9,446 per student; the number is even less for virtual schools, with the state spending between $6,044 to $8,419 per pupil in fiscal year 2020. Comparing this to the tuition charged by Oklahoma private Catholic high schools, we see an even greater discrepancy. Cascia Hall in Tulsa charges $16,800 per year; Bishop Kelley in Tulsa charges $13,070 per year; Bishop McGuinness in Oklahoma City charges $16,245 per year; and Mount St. Mary charges $13,450 per year. Cristo Rey in Oklahoma City charges less, but also requires its students to participate in a work study program (a requirement that could not apply in a public school). With a public Catholic virtual school certain to receive many thousands of dollars less per year than established private Catholic schools, what compromises will need to be made for the school to balance its budget? A virtual school has less overhead in building maintenance—that expense is primarily borne by the families of the students at home—but that savings will not amount to thousands of dollars per pupil.
As the parent of a former virtual school student, I can speak from experience when I answer this question: instruction and services will be compromised. The low amount of money provided by Oklahoma per student means the school would be unlikely to hire highly qualified instructors—given the bare requirement of a high school diploma to be a public school teacher in Oklahoma, the Catholic virtual school has the very real potential to be little more than a glorified homeschool co-op. Even worse, the low funding will greatly limit the services available for special needs students (who, unlike private schools, a public Catholic school will be legally required to accept and assist); this is particularly ironic given the Diocese of Tulsa strongly (and futilely) campaigned to overturn the Blaine Amendment in 2016 by arguing it cruelly targets disabled children.
Furthermore, the lack of experienced educational professionals on either of the relevant state educational boards means there will be little oversight of the curriculum offered by the school, meaning not only that there would be legitimate concerns about the STEM instruction in the school (qualified instructors will be extremely hard to attract), but also about the type and amount of religious instruction (as well as the religious expectations and obligations placed upon non-Catholic—and particularly non-Christian—students). The point about religious education is not minor. A private school can be selective with its admissions, and thus has more flexibility with the rigor of its religious teaching and its corresponding expectations for conformity (or at least quiet tolerance) by students. A public school, however, is required to accept all students (with the limited exception of those with significant disciplinary/legal issues) and will be subject to federal regulations regarding religious discrimination, meaning the Catholic public school will be legally obligated to provide religious accommodations for a diverse body of students and therefore will need instructors and staff who can handle diversity with professionalism and sensitivity (a need that again is less likely to be adequately addressed with a bare-bones budget).
An Almost Inevitable Failure
It is possible a few families will benefit from such a school, with children—particularly from rural areas with limited opportunities—thriving in a distinctly Catholic educational environment and growing into healthy, happy adults who make wonderful contributions to their society and the world. I fear, however, that such people will be the minority.
Instead, what is far more likely is that an underfunded, highly sectarian school will simply bore some students and alienate others, limiting their lives and career possibilities with a mediocre education that gives them a cramped view of the world and leaves them unprepared for the challenges of teeming diversity in a global economy. Still more, these students will grow up in a culture of perpetual legal warfare, where some people sue their school because they do not want to fund Christianity, others sue because they want state money spent on their religion rather than Catholicism, the federal government sues because the school fails to meet educational objectives and/or violates non-discrimination laws…the grim possibilities are endless; even worse, some people pushing this are doing so in part because they relish the prospect of slugging it out in court (and probably making a nice pot of money doing so). In the end, rather than becoming pious Catholics who unquestioningly remain in the very narrow lane through life into which they’ve been consigned, many (if not most) of the students of such a school are very likely to resent the institution that condemned them to this fate.
It is all so unnecessary…and so easily avoided.
