https://tcf.org/content/commentary/second-class-students-vouchers-exclude/
Kimberly Quick of The Century Foundation describes the many exclusionary policies of North Carolina’s voucher schools.
Here is a sampling:
Conservative education reformers have aggressively marketed the expansion of K–12 private school voucher programs as a method to increase access to educational options. Their arguments begin to break down, however, when asking the questions, Access for whom? And to what?
The types of voucher-centered school choice schemes promoted by both President-elect Trump and Betsy DeVos, his nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education (ED), like most programs in education policy, are administered by states and localities. Trump’s open denigration of the Department of Education’s civil rights and standards oversight functions further indicate that a DeVos ED will place few stipulations on how states receiving federal funds for vouchers must design and implement those programs.
Some of those voucher programs might look something like the highly discriminatory North Carolina Opportunity Scholarship Act. Established by the state legislature in 2013, the program offers low-income and working-class families state-funded tuition scholarships to private schools of up to $4,200. In some ways, the Opportunity Scholarship might seem innocuous. Private schools receiving state funds are required to test scholarship recipients (though notably not with state tests for direct comparison, and there is virtually no obligation for public disclosure), and most students must have spent time in public schools prior to private school enrollment to be eligible—conditions that are missing in other programs in states like Indiana and Wisconsin. But even the quickest examination of the types of schools taking taxpayer money reveals that state dollars are, in actuality, too often funding discrimination.
An overwhelming number of the more than 400 private schools registered in the program are religiously affiliated. Although a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vouchers used for religious school attendance do not violate the establishment clause, the primary issue with North Carolina’s program is not that the schools themselves are religious, but that too many condition admission and retention on dogmatic adherence to specific religious doctrine, usually excluding those who are LGBTQ or come from non-churchgoing families.
Religious and LGBTQ Discrimination
Alamance Christian School (ACS) received $121,132 in public voucher funds during the 2015–2016 academic year, all while maintaining an official, publically available admissions policy that explicitly bars all faiths outside of Christianity, along with children from families that are “Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Science” and more. To confirm that they are from the “right” type of Christian family, children seeking admission must produce a pastoral reference. Then, before enrolling, all middle and high school students are expected to sign a commitment form pledging to refrain from “homosexual/bisexual behaviors, or any other biblical violation of the unique roles of males and females.”
And ACS is not some random oversight, a school hiding out within the list of eligibles despite a uniquely restrictive profile. Instead, it reflects the biases of several other schools that are partially funded by the dollars of taxpayers, some of whom aren’t allowed to send their children to those very institutions. For instance, one of the schools receiving the most public money, Fayetteville Christian School (receiving more than $285,000 in 2015–2016) has near identical restrictions, requiring regular church attendance of applicants and parents, issuing the following statement on their website:
“The student and at least one parent with whom the student resides must be in full agreement with the FCS Statement of Faith and have received Jesus Christ as their Savior. In addition, the parent and student must regularly fellowship in a local faith based, Bible believing church. Accordingly, FCS will not admit families that belong to or express faith in non-Christian religions such as, but not limited to: Mormons (LDS Church), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims (Islam), non-Messianic Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Accordingly, FCS will not admit families that engage in illegal drug use, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality (LGBT) or other behaviors that Scripture defines as deviate and perverted. Once admitted, if the student or parent/guardian with whom the student resides becomes involved in any of the above activities it will be grounds for dismissal of the student/family from the school. (Also see pages 9 and 28 of the Student Handbook)”
At Raleigh Christian Academy, which collected about $233,000 in state money through the voucher program, the administration mandates that “no young man do anything which might detract from his masculinity,” calling anything other than that narrowly and vaguely defined masculine ideal “an abomination before God.” The school also reminds its female students that “Satan desires to take away from a lady’s feminine qualities.” Not only are the identities of gender non-conforming and other LGBTQ students under attack in many “Opportunity” schools, these students—along with straight student whose families fail to conform to specific religious doctrine—have abridged options, even as their parents pay tax dollars to a state that rubber stamps their exclusion.
Read on for more reasons to keep the unwanted out.
Will DeVos require non-discrinatory admissions to religious schools? Don’t count on it.

Throughout the south there are many Christian schools that were established after Brown v. the Board of Education. Many of these schools serve the children of white families that do not want to send their children to an integrated school. Segregation is often at the heart of choice systems. When given a choice, parents tend to send their children to a school where the children look like their own children. It is better for young people to learn how to function in a diverse world. It creates healthier attitudes when people are taught to accept individual differences. Choice systems around the world have found that it resulted in increased segregation levels despite the fact that “reformers” have posted lots of articles to the contrary. Separate and unequal generally follow choice. https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/choice-without-equity-2009-report*
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
We have a Catholic school here and one of the selling points for parents is the school can pick students- parents don’t hesitate to point this out as a plus. I’m baffled why ed reformers won’t admit this is one of a number of reasons for choosing a private school. It’s a perfectly valid reason for choosing a “private” anything- because it’s exclusionary.
They didn’t anticipate that this would be a problem with vouchers? Does anyone do any thinking at all in this “movement”?
LikeLike
Chiara: to answer your last two sentences…
No and yes.
😳
Some rheephormsters at least act completely surprised and taken aback at such predictable results of their own policies and mandates. *Proviso: they then absolve themselves of any responsibility for creating such catastrophes. But for others it’s a matter of being careful what they promise, and advocate for, in public so that they can get what they have been working for all along.
They simply turn on its head what a very old and very dead and very Greek guy admonished against:
“Hateful to me as are the gates of hell, Is he who, hiding one thing in his heart, Utters another.” [Homer]
In other words, they regard hypocrisy and lies as something to flee TOWARDS rather than AWAY FROM.
And they quite proudly deem it as proof of their moral superiority.
More amongst themselves than publicly, natcherly.
😎
LikeLike
Chiara: I’ll do a little informal checking, but I am surprised that a Catholic school would “pick students” on the basis of race (is there some other issue involved in the choosing?). The Catholic religion serves pretty-much every race and ethnicity in countries all over the world and neither their hierarchy nor their congregations are (obviously) discriminatory according to country or color (gender is another issue). Though their doctrines and teaching are pretty strong about sexual issues, I’ve yet to see any doctrine, in writing or not, in school or church, that excludes anyone. The only exclusion I’ve witnessed is from taking communion in some circumstances.
I don’t read this into your note, but let me say again: the Catholic Church has its many problems; but I think it folly for us here to lump them in with the large and varied group of protestant Christian Churches (in many cases, evangelical) like the ones in North Carolina. I have known some from those churches who don’t even know that Catholics are Christian or that the Catholic Church is the mother of the Protestant Churches who broke away from the C-Church during King Henry’s time (VIII). The one’s that I know set themselves off from everyone else who (they deem) has not been “saved.” It’s downright tribal and not even Christian in my view.
In religious terms, however, if I might say so here and not offend anyone, DeVos is an excellent example how evil works–by wrapping itself in someone’s false version of good and fooling that person into think they are “doing God’s work.” A closed mind helps the process along.
LikeLike
Beliefs based on sacred texts are the most suspect and least convincing of any beliefs. Less credible than personal opinion because those “sacred beliefs” are based on others’ experiences (not that using other’s experiences is necessarily bad/wrong), experiences that many times are so far removed from the individual who is using those far off (in time and space) experiences that the individual has to accept that they are “true” without thoughtful reflection. At least opinions are based on the here and now, and if not then many times those opinions/beliefs are considered as signs of mental instability, madness, insanity.
Hey if your sacred text beliefs work for you, great, but don’t insist that I have to believe your unfounded thoughts and opinions. As a personal experience it is fine and dandy, who am I to doubt your mental life and experiences? But I cannot accept when you attempt to take those thoughts out of your mental realm, insert them into the social realm and impose them on others.
LikeLike
Our public district seems to work quite well with the religious school. There’s no animosity, probably because politicians didn’t set it up as a zero sum competition like ed reformers do.
We also don’t kid ourselves that the Catholic school is a public school, because that’s not true.
It’s an exclusionary private school, which is one of the reasons parents choose it.
LikeLike
Having grown up in the Catholic Church environment K-12 I am fully aware of it’s reliance on sacred texts, texts which I started rejecting before I got to high school. And it’s precisely because those beliefs are personal and cannot be adequately defended in a rationo-logical fashion that I ended up rejecting them. Now that is not to say I didn’t come away with a “good” education but that came from me rejecting the absurdities they were trying to indoctrinate into me and broadening my horizons, so to speak, learning to distinguish personal beliefs/opinions from those that are societally recognized as legitimate forms of discourse for all, not just believers of a certain sect/religion.
LikeLike
The brilliance of the founding documents and thoughts is exactly the rejection of sectarian beliefs and the acceptance of the existence of multiple belief systems, that acceptance being one of tolerance in the face of intolerance.
And it is that religious intolerance that is ongoing today (Hey, my sacred text says this and yours doesn’t so you are wrong), especially in the debate of public funding of private and/or religious schools.
We are supposed to accept their intolerance?
I know that we can’t and the founders knew it. And that is why they very explicitly condemned government functioning in support of one or another sectarian creeds-the separation of church and state.
LikeLike
Hey Duane I’m just going to put this out there for consideration… Perhaps as a suggestion that Catholic schools offer something different from the born-again Christian evangelist schools that have always seemed so eager to drink from the public tax-supported trough…. whose motivations are tainted by their >ouch!< [racism?]
First of all, tho Catholic parents are no doubt gaga to get a RE-tax-discount toward Catholic-school tuition– correct me if I’m wrong: that doesn’t seem to be in the professed interests of the Catholic establishment, which has often published opinions in their religious organs against anything beyond minimal fed tax support (like for providing milk at lunch): the Holy See is not thrilled w/having to kow-tow to fed DOEd $ strings like CCSS, & as we speak are debating whether & how they can contort themselves to teach it…
…& I shouldn’t even mention (but I will) that Catholic schools have accepted non-Catholic kids for decades, & even 30 yrs ago (when I lived in Bklyn & had my kids baptised at the local Catholic church) had a student population of all colors & mostly working/ middle class…
But the point that occurs to me: you are much like my cradle-Catholic husband & many cradle-Catholic friends: you reject the authoritarian ways in which you were taught, & have a very open mind…
This tells me something about Catholicism.
Personally: I came to Catholicism via a mixed Protestant/Catholic family background. Granted, this was in the anti-Viet Nam war era, but the fact was, prominent priests in my town (including Dan Berrigan, the head of our local University’s Catholic community) were spearheading what seemed to me the appropriate political position.
I was not a cradle-Catholic. My Mom raised me on the Dutch Catechism (as opposed to the Boston Catechism), & –tho our local church was run by an Irish-Catholic Msgr– our asst-parish-priest was a Jesuit from Bombay, who taught me the fine nuances threading the needle between Rome & daily spiritual decisions.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, kudos to the Catholic church which taught you to think logically, even if that meant rejecting their authoritarian ways & finding your own philosophical grounds– & kudos to a church which questions the validity of accepting any DOEd funding which is tied to CCSS & its aligned assessments.
LikeLike
While I’m sure there are many reasons parents choose a Catholic School Education for their children, one of the reasons is to keep their kids away from the riff raft of the public schools. I’ve seen this in Buffalo, but more surprising I’ve also seen it in the upscale suburbs where I’ve lived.
I’m not saying these are bad schools (although sometimes the teachers aren’t certified in the subject areas they teach), I’m just wondering why anyone would pay exhorbitant taxes for an exemplary public school education and then choose to pay tuition at their local parish.
LikeLike
Duane: What bothers me the most is the closed mind that so-often goes along with the quite-literally “holier than thou” attitudes. And several that I know always have cherry-picked Bible passages to quote and stick with, like a bumper sticker is stuck to their forehead. Jesus’ life, as portrayed all over the New Testament, precludes, even puts to shame by comparison, such attitudes over and over again. That way of life stays regardless of which denomination any of us belong to.
LikeLike
Dear Catherine,
I feel so lucky that I live in a place (in NJ) where I am no longer exposed to what you describe. People here are very much live & let live. And I was very fortunate to grow up in a NYS university town: tho it was in upstate-NY, & that ‘holier-than-thou’ population was definitely represented, we had so many other congregations represented– everything from [in my day] Christian Evangelist to left-fringe Catholicism/ spiritualism; no doubt today expanding further.
But in my measly 3 yrs away from the East (in the ’70’s, in Mi), I learned to keep my mouth shut about politics and religion. Much is said today about the supposedly-liberal [Democratic] “PC” policy. I learned in the ’70’s, in the Midwest– a bastion of conservatism– that talking about religion or politics is verboten. There’s your “PC”.
LikeLike
You wonder if ed reformers have thought thru any of this. There seems to be this assumption that public schools will always be there as a sort of disfavored “back up” to allow their “choice” schools to receive public funding.
I’m shocked at how many ed reform pieces I read where public schools are simply not mentioned. I know they’re operating in the background as a sort of safety net but they hold so little value for ed reformers that they aren’t even considered in various privatization schemes.
I read that some national charter chains were pulling out of the achievement district in Tennessee. Ed reformers understand that this a luxury public schools don’t have, right? Public schools can’t “pull out” when it doesn’t go well or when the results might damage the “brand”.
LikeLike
“Reformers” have no interest in improving public schools as there are few ways to profit from them. They want to destroy them to clear a path for privatization which provides multiples paths for profit.
LikeLike
retired teacher: The Republicans are doing the same two-step with education as they are with health insurance–what they really want is to have NO public-participation insurance program at all, abandoning everyone to the Wall Street insurance companies–instead of Pay to Play, it’s Pay or Die.
LikeLike
Catherine: You are correct. Ryan’s plan will be a disaster by pushing the sick into a separate unsustainable privatized plan. The Republicans want to eliminate the federal involvement in social safety nets. They will all be subject to “modernization,” if Ryan has his way, and Trump is oblivious.
LikeLike
retired teacher Yes–I looked at Ryan’s health “plan” a couple of years back, before Trump even came on the scene; and was appalled–it was nothing less than Draconian . Maybe even Ryan doesn’t recognize it, but they are aiming at a Russia-like kleptocracy. Need I say that absolute power corrupts absolutely? And a circular system of outside accountability of factions best makes for cultural development and dynamic order.
And if I understand what you are saying, Trump never was a “Republican party man” and Ryan et all just think he will sign whatever they put in front of him. I guess it may even be in “the people’s” best interest for Trump to get wind of that. He’s a total fool, but he’s his own fool and no one else’s, at least if he becomes aware. Let irony have its way?
LikeLike
Chiara says: “There seems to be this assumption that public schools will always be there as a sort of disfavored “back up” to allow their “choice” schools to receive public funding.”
My take on it is that “reformers” need public school for several reasons. First, to be the poor strawman to their well-advertised exceptional quality. As long as public schools exist, they can continue to bad-mouth them to worried parents–the change is slow and systematic. Public schools are their foil. Take them away and the “reformers” own problems become much easier to see.
As you know, some charters etc. ARE qualified–for those cherry-picked they want to accept and keep; some public schools ARE poorly managed (and poorly resourced and funded), and some teachers ARE “bad.” These “bad” points, however, are also well-advertised. But they are also the equivalent of “welfare moms” and more generally “lazy takers” focused on in other kinds of public programs–a kind of negative cherry-picking of real but very small percentages of the whole that the program services. (They are doing the same thing with higher ed and with federal programming for Veterans). They know the un-attending public tends to broad-brush based on those advertised stereotypes. And with their children’s education, they know how easy it is to spark fear in parents’ hearts.
(They also overlook the foundational issues I have focused on here often but which are difficult to explain to parents without a proper forum–like the connection of public education and other programs with the common good, as well as the commonwealth, that is laid out in the U.S. Constitution.)
Second, “reformers” need public schools to keep the present tax funding (and the policy/thinking behind it) in place–they cannot just get rid of public schools altogether so that, ironically, parents lose that choice. And with present restrictions in our Constitution, they cannot steer tax money directly to religious or other private (unaccountable) schools in lieu of missing public schools (as they would really like to do). However, with the mandates to support “public” education in place, they CAN talk their way around religious-support issues, as well as accountability issues under the guise of “private” corporate ownership, and steer monies to those schools (vouchers, etc.–change the language and: Voila!)
Third, “Reformers” are still working under the wire, so to speak, of a huge number of the present-public’s acceptance and even love of public education. Their intention is long term. Keeping public schools in place for now puts off the public uproar that would surely raise up if they had their way and made a direct attack on “government schools.”
“Reformers” don’t talk about public education because public schools, on principle, are not in their mental silo-horizon, which is: competitive-capitalistic, entrepreneurial, zero-sum game, and predatory. It’s capitalism understood in a tribal framework. Basically, they know in their hearts that they cannot compete with public schools so, in their entrepreneurial silo-horizon, they see anything public as “monopolistic.” <–that tag is a huge clue. And who can fight with a monopoly? So just don’t mention them.
My suspicion is that the movement becomes exponential on January 20.
LikeLike
If I may add a bit to your thought Catherine:
“First, to be the poor strawman to their well-advertised SUPPOSEDLY BUT UNFOUNDED exceptional quality.”
Let’s not give them any credit at all especially where and when it is not due.
LikeLike
Duane E Swacker: you say: Let’s not give them any credit at all especially where and when it is not due.”
Of course not; and extreme polemics has its place, especially on the battlefield, but not to obscure truth. But sometimes, it IS due–and good argument fortifies itself by first boldly recognizing the truth in the other’s argument, even if the other guy has some of it, then revealing the falsity and crushing their argument with your own. The way up is rarely found, if ever, by going back and forth.
In this case, I’ve seen unaware teachers and administrators–but especially teachers–whose hearts are all in the right place and where the albeit-narrowed curriculum is well-developed, though still in a total disconnect with its foundations and, therefore, implicitly involved in the corruption of civic culture and in the dissipation of forces that are for the common good.
LikeLike
Ordered a copy of your book. Look forward to reading it.
LikeLike
Thanks, Duane.
LikeLike
Teachers wearing political blinders are ubiquitous.
LikeLike
They were able to close most public schools in New Orleans. Rahm closed fifty schools in Chicago. Newark is moving along nicely in school closures. Why would shutting down public education be outside the realm of possibility?
LikeLike
Abigail Shure writes: “Why would shutting down public education be outside the realm of possibility?”
It’s not–in places where a good amount of upheaval and dissatisfaction are present, where the electorate is not active and solid, and where the political leadership is complicit in what’s up and how to make it work. Each situation is at a different stage of the process.
At least while Betsy DeVos is active, we should at least remember the following quotes from John Chubb’s book that was highlighted and marked “vital” by Dick and Betsy’s lawyer in 1990 (compliments of a note here from Hector Solon on Jan. 5):
“Our guiding principle in the design of a choice system is this: public authority must be put to use in creating a system that is almost entirely out of the reach public authority.” AND THIS:
“…part of the definition of what democracy and public education are all about. . . . This identification has never been valid. There is nothing in the concept of democracy to require that schools be subject to direct control by school boards, superintendents, central offices, departments of education, and other arms of government. Nor is there anything in the concept of public education to require that schools be governed in this way.”
Is there anything in these two quotes that doesn’t sound like a plan that is already being carried out by DeVos?
LikeLike
Chiara– I know you have been on this forever– that the natl ed conversation excludes the pubschs which 85% of our kids attend… But I think you are onto something here. We pro-pubsch-sys backers need to be talking about how none of these ‘free-market’ alternatives can exist without the pubsch sys as backup. The natl conversation about charters/ vouchers exists in some la-la land where pubschs [,govt schools’] cease to exist. Yet by definition they have to be there as a clearing-house for kids entering the district, & as the backup for kids who can’t get admitted to privates [SpEd/ ELL], & those suspended/ expelled from other schools, & those dumped back into the system when charters/ privates close due to fiscal mimgt or are closed by the state due to lack of adequate ed-achievement.
LikeLike
Bethree,
That is a scenario of “public school as dumpster” for the kids unwanted by the charter-voucher schools.
I think it is important to emphasize that every dollar for charter-voucher is taken from public schools and weakens them.
Besides, we now have 25 years of evidence that charters-vouchers don’t get better results on tests than public schools. They are a proven failure.
LikeLike
These religious institutions have been lobbying for public funding for years. It appears they’ve finally found a way around separation of church and state, at least in some states.
Could this be one of the hidden agendas behind the privatization movement?
LikeLike
Flos56,
There has always been lobbying to send public funds to religious schools but some religious leaders fight this. Pastors for TexasSchools have opposed vouchers on grounds of separation of church and state. Where government money goes, government control eventually follows.
LikeLike
“That they will throw off their European dependence I have no doubt; but in what kind of government their revolution will end I am not so certain. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” TJ
Was there any doubt in that statement. Amazing how the constructionist, construct to suite their political advantages. That wall
first adopted in Virginia before the concept was enshrined in the constitution, debated in both forums , was far more important than the paper machete that Little Hands will put on the Southern border.
More nausea .
LikeLike
You are absolutely right about government money. No government disburses money without at least some measure of control. That is why some (not all) religious institutions of higher learning refuse all government money. With those “shekels”, come “shackles”.
LikeLike
A very small number of colleges do not accept any federal funding. They are Very conservative and Christian. They include Hillsdale and Grove City College: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/
LikeLike
I’ve been following the hard christian fundamentalist dominionist right since the 70s. The answer to your question is a resounding YES! These folks, like THEBetsy, really do want their version of a christian caliphate complete with christian madrassas. (and yes I am purposely confusing and conflating the islamic and christian terms)
Look up the Moral Majority (sic), christian Coalition, Falwell, Robertsons, Dobson, LaHaye etc. . . . They made a long range plan and have stuck with it and it has been paying off quite handsomely for them in the courts, state houses and national offices.
LikeLike
In my young naivete at the time I thought that there was no chance in hell that they would get anywhere near as far as they have. Was I wrong!!
LikeLike