What Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and Betsy DeVos Won't Tell You About 'School Choice'
Indiana has one of the most expansive private school voucher programs in the country, courtesy of Mike Pence. During his time as governor, Pence “removed the cap on the number of students who could qualify for a voucher to a private school, increased the limits on qualifying family income, and removed [a] stipulation that the student had to try the public school first,” according to of the state’s school choice failures by The Washington Post yesterday.
The result?
Last year alone, Indiana taxpayers financed private school education — nearly all religious — to the tune of $146.1 million “with most of it going to families who would have sent their children to private school anyway.” Oh, and by the way, a in grades 3-8 who actually did use the voucher to transfer from a public to a private school showed that the voucher program had a negative impact on students’ academic achievement.
Those are the type of important details you didn’t hear or read last week from voucher proponents who dubbed the week, “National School Choice Week.” President Trump issued an recognizing the “celebration,” while school choice supporters, such as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and Pence, wrote and deluged with platitudes about empowering parents and helping children achieve the “American dream.” There’s no question that parents should feel empowered when it comes to their child’s education, or that every student should be positioned to pursue their dreams, but that is not what the “school choice” movement is really about.
Rather “school choice” is a catch-all phrase that covers a variety of efforts by diverting public education funds to private sources. It includes home schooling, charter schools, and virtual education, but it is mostly code for private school vouchers and similar programs, such as education savings accounts and tax credit scholarship programs. The school choice movement has been around for decades, working to expand its reach school district by school district and state by state.
With the election of President Trump and Vice President Pence and the appointment of Secretary DeVos, the movement has received an alarming boost. But it’s not the panacea that Trump and others claim. And privatizing public education in this way has serious consequences for students, civil rights, equality, and religious liberty.
As an initial matter, decades of studies show that vouchers generally do not improve educational outcomes. For example, a found a statistically significant negative impact on math achievement for voucher students overall. Likewise, kindergarten through fifth-grade students, who comprise the majority of the students in the program, were beset by statistically significant negative impacts in both reading and math. Meanwhile, participation in the voucher program had no statistically significant effect on student or parent satisfaction or students’ perception of safety.
Studies of voucher programs in , , and Milwaukee, among others, likewise found negative or negligible impacts on students’ academic performance. Indeed, a of Milwaukee’s program, published yesterday, found that “vouchers worked best when enrollment from voucher students was kept low.” However, “[a]s the percentage of voucher students rises, the returns diminish until the point when there is little difference between the performance of public and private institutions.” And, “[t]he vast majority of private schools participating in the program today have high percentages of publicly funded students.”
In other words, to be even mildly successful, voucher programs will not be able to assist all students. They cannot be the cure-all that proponents promise because the more voucher students a school takes on, the greater the negative impact on students’ academic performance.
Civil rights protections are also undermined by school voucher programs. Private voucher schools do not have the same obligations as public schools under federal law to protect students from harassment and discrimination. Unlike public schools, private voucher schools can discriminate against students based on their religion, , , academic achievement, and disciplinary history. In fact, according to , only four voucher programs across the country required private schools to accept all students with vouchers, space permitting. Students in voucher schools also lose key First Amendment rights, due process rights, and other rights protected by the U.S. Constitution in public schools.
Accountability is , increasing the risk that the few rights retained by voucher students will be violated, that taxpayer funds will be mismanaged, and that the quality of the education provided by the school will be inferior. For instance, many voucher schools that receive taxpayer funds are not required to meet any standards for teacher qualifications, testing, or achievement. In some states, private school teachers need not even have a bachelor’s degree, and only 11 states require that voucher schools be accredited, meaning that voucher funds are often used to pay for tuition at unaccredited schools.
Many voucher schools, moreover, are religious. Schools not only discriminate against students and employees based on religion and other grounds, as noted above, but they also do not have to meet the same curricular requirements that public schools do. Many religious voucher schools, for example, teach creationism in science class. They also incorporate religious worship into the curriculum in the form of chapel, daily prayer, or daily scriptural readings and infringe upon basic principles of religious liberty by providing public funds for sectarian proselytizing.
These are just some of the facts about vouchers and school choice that President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Secretary DeVos won’t tell you. We’ll continue to shine a light on how these programs fail students and undermine our public schools as proponents push them without regard to their effects on students’ academic performance, civil rights, and religious liberty.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Religious Liberty
Civil Liberties Organizations Unite to Oppose Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters’ Latest Push for Religion in Public SchoolsCivil Liberties Organizations Unite to Oppose Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters’ Latest Push for Religion in Public Schools
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice are uniting to challenge Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters’s latest attempt to impose religion on students in the state’s public school system. On Friday, the coalition sent a letter to every superintendent in Oklahoma urging them not to show or disseminate Walters’ prayer video. The letter emphasizes the constitutional requirement for public schools to remain secular and warns that promoting the video to students and parents would violate both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The letter also points out that Superintendent Walters lacks the authority to require local school districts to play the video (or any other video) to their students. On Thursday, to promote his new “Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism,” Superintendent Walters emailed all superintendents within the state a “Mandatory Announcement” that linked to a video entitled “Prayer for the Nation.” Additionally, the email asserted that all Oklahoma schools must play the video for all their students and send it to their parents. In the video, Walters blames the “radical left” and “woke teachers unions” for “attacking” religious liberty and then delivers a lengthy prayer supporting President-elect Donald Trump. Walters encourages students to join in his prayer. “Requiring students to watch a prayer video violates students’ religious freedom, including their Establishment Clause rights,” the coalition’s letter warns. “It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise[.]” The coalition reminds superintendents of their responsibility to protect all students’ religious freedom, regardless of their personal beliefs. By promoting a specific religious perspective, schools risk alienating students who do not share those beliefs, fostering an environment of exclusion and discrimination. The coalition encourages parents and students to report any incidents where the video has been shown or used in schools. Walters separately announced on Thursday that he purchased more than 500 Bibles for Advanced Placement (AP) Government classrooms. In October, the coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of 32 Oklahomans urging the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block Walters’ mandate that all public schools incorporate the bible into their curricula. This coalition stands firm in defending the rights of every student to receive a secular education free from religious influence. A copy of the letter can be found here: https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/State-Superintendent-Ryan-Walters-OK-Religious-Video-Mandate.pdf -
MaineNov 2024
Religious Liberty
St. Dominic Academy v. MakinSt. Dominic Academy v. Makin
The ACLU, ACLU of Maine, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing that religious schools in Maine participating in the state’s school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program – including a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other protected characteristics. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Religious Liberty
Court Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments in Every ClassroomCourt Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments in Every Classroom
BATON ROUGE, LA – In a victory for religious freedom, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction today in Rev. Roake v. Brumley, prohibiting implementation of a Louisiana law that requires all public schools to permanently display a government-approved, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In the ruling, Judge John W. DeGravelles determined that Louisiana’s H.B. 71, enacted last June, violates the First Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state statute, holding that the First Amendment bars public schools from posting such displays. The defendants conceded during oral argument that Stone remains good law and is binding on lower courts. In his 177-page opinion, the judge explained: [T]hese displays must be posted in every “classroom in each school,” all year round, regardless of subject matter, and regardless of the age of the student. Thus, the question is not whether the Biblical laws can ever be put on a poster; the issue is whether, as a matter of law, there is any constitutional way to display the Ten Commandments in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Act. In short, the Court finds that there is not. First, Stone remains good law and is directly on point, and this Court is bound to follow it. Second, even putting Stone aside . . . , Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that H.B. 71 fails to comply with the Establishment Clause analysis laid out in Kennedy and Fifth Circuit precedent. Judge DeGravelles also recognized that H.B. 71 would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the children-plaintiffs in the case by imposing religious doctrine on them for nearly every hour of the school day, throughout their entire public-school education. And, pointing to the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Steven K. Green, the court found that there is no historical support for permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms and that doing so would be at odds with our nation’s Founders’ understanding of the separation of church and state. The court’s opinion concludes: Each of the Plaintiffs’ minor children will be forced “in every practical sense,” through Louisiana’s required attendance policy, to be a “captive audience” and to participate in a religious exercise: reading and considering a specific version of the Ten Commandments, one posted in every single classroom, for the entire school year, regardless of the age of the student or subject matter of the course. And, despite the differences among the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs (be they Unitarian Universalist, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, or atheist/agnostic), the common threads are (1) that the required posting of the Decalogue conflicts with specific parts of their faith, and (2) that one of those articles of faith, shared by nearly all Plaintiff parents, is raising their children in accordance with their own beliefs and values. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Act and its requirements are coercive and inconsistent with the history of First Amendment and public education. The court further ruled that H.B. 71 also violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause. After finding that the law violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the court prohibited the defendants from “(1) enforcing H.B. 71; (2) adopting rules or regulations for the enforcement of H.B. 71; and (3) requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public-school classroom in Louisiana in accordance with H.B. 71.” The Court additionally directed the state defendants to provide notice of its order and H.B. 71’s unconstitutionality to all Louisiana public elementary, secondary, and charter schools, and all public post-secondary education institutions. Because the court denied the defendants’ request to pause (or “stay”) the preliminary injunction while they seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it immediately takes effect. “H.B. 71 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we’re pleased and relieved that the court ruled in our favor,” said Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Adrian Van Young. “As an interfaith family, we expect our children to receive their secular education in public school and their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.” “This ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity,” said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Public schools are not Sunday schools, and today’s decision ensures that our clients’ classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.” “We are pleased that the First Amendment rights of students and families are protected by this vital court decision,” said Patrick Elliott, Legal Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “This ruling will ensure that Louisiana families – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation’s public school children. Not on our watch.” “Religious freedom—the right to choose one’s faith without pressure—is essential to American democracy,” said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Today’s ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiff’s children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.” Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department, added, “We are heartened by the District Court’s well-reasoned and detailed opinion, which rests upon the wisdom of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the protections it affords regarding the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion.” Represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools. Today’s opinion, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, is available online here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/11/LA-10c-Opinion.pdf