Archives for category: Religion

Betsy DeVos and Randi Weingarten visited the public schools of rural Van Wert, Ohio. Randi wanted Betsy to see how important federal dollars are to a good public school. Betsy went along and got a promise from Randi to tour a school of choice with her.

Education Week says the “rifts” between them remain. Yeah, a rift the size of the Grand Canyon is not likely to close no matter how many schools they visit together or how often they meet.

Betsy’s spokesperson says she is not anti-public school. She just pours millions into campaigns of state and local candidates who support charters and vouchers, not public schools.

This effort to find common ground between polar opposites strikes me as pointless. It would be like bringing a devout Orthodox Jew to a Roman Catholic Church in hopes of changing his mind, or bringing a devout Roman Catholic to a synagogue and expecting to find common ground. Or hoping that a Bosox fan would be converted by a visit to the Yankees’ dugout. C’mon!

The New York Times’ account has this perceptive comment:

“Van Wert educators said they believed their biggest threat was school choice. An expanded voucher program would be “potentially catastrophic” for the district’s finances, said Mike Ruen, the district’s treasurer.
About 400 students now take advantage of a state open-enrollment policy, which Ms. DeVos endorsed during her visit. It allows students to attend an out-of-district school and take $6,000 in state per-pupil funding with them.
Most of them attend schools in a neighboring suburb. About 20 students are enrolled in an online charter school that has a 39 percent graduation rate. And a local vocational school takes 80 percent of the funding for each student who transfers there.

“Only one private school competes directly with Van Wert public schools: a small Catholic elementary school in town that the public school system provides special education services to, mostly at no charge. A Catholic high school 15 miles away is less of a draw, but could become one if parents receive vouchers. “I don’t think people are against choice,” Mr. Amstutz said. “But when you talk about expansion, taking money away from public schools, it gives people heartburn.”

Betsy DeVos will not change her mind about the importance of giving taxpayer dollars to every family to choose a charter school, a religious school, home schooling, a cyber charter, or whatever other option they want. They can even choose a public school. To the extent she is able, she will divert federal funds away from public schools to the other choices. She won’t resist Trump’s deep budget cuts. This visit will not transform her. It will not make her more attentive to the needs of the children in public schools. No doubt, she feels sorry for them because they are in public schools.

Randi will not stop being a union leader because of visiting a non-union charter or voucher school. She won’t stop believing in the importance or value of public schools. She won’t become a supporter of DeVos’s privatization agenda or Trump’s budget cuts.

Sorry, friends, but I don’t see the point of seeking “common ground.” There is none.

News for those who stayed home on Election Day 2016 or voted third party because Hillary was “just as bad as Trump.” The first casualty of Trump’s election might be the state bans on vouchers for religious schools.

Politico reports today:

SUPREME COURT COULD CLEAR ROADBLOCKS TO SCHOOL VOUCHERS: The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear a case that could have huge implications for school voucher programs. At issue is an 1875 provision of Missouri’s Constitution banning public money from going “directly or indirectly” to religious groups, including schools. Similar provisions, called Blaine Amendments, exist in roughly three dozen states and have been a major barrier to school vouchers. They’ve also proved resilient, surviving numerous state ballot repeal efforts – including an unsuccessful Michigan initiative pushed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos nearly two decades ago.

– Religious groups see this and a related Colorado case as their best shots at scrapping the amendments – and they believe Neil Gorsuch, who just took his seat on the high court, will take their side. They point to Gorsuch’s deference to religious rights in other cases. Most notably, while on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he backed a religious challenge to the Affordable Care Act – joining the panel’s majority in the Hobby Lobby case to rule that the Obama administration could not require a closely-held business to offer contraceptive coverage if that interfered with the owners’ religious beliefs – a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. In another case, he ruled that a Wyoming prison had to provide a sweat lodge to a Native American for his religious practices.

– Court watchers believe Gorsuch might cast a tie-breaking vote since the court had apparently delayed arguments in the Missouri case until they had a ninth justice. “The justices have likely seen this as a case on which they would have been divided four to four,” said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University. “They must expect that Gorsuch will be the deciding fifth vote.” Benjamin Wermund has more on that here.

– There is a chance the case could get tossed out . The case hinges on the state’s denial of Trinity Lutheran Church’s request for a grant to reimburse the cost of resurfacing its preschool playground with recycled tires. State officials said the Blaine Amendment prevented it from aiding the church in any way. But late last week, Missouri’s newly elected Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, announced that he has directed the state agency to consider religious organizations for such grants. The parties on both sides must submit their views by noon today on whether the the announcement makes the legal dispute moot. Even if the justices dismiss this case, they could soon hear the same issues in a pending Colorado case in which the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State claim a school voucher program violates the state’s no-aid clause.

I am happy to report that Valerie Strauss reposted my article on why public funds should go only to public schools, and she added a valuable introduction about the case that will soon come before the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley. The case involves the appeal of a Lutheran church in Missouri and its preschool that had sought a grant from a state program to use scrap tires for a playground but was denied because of the 1875 provision in the state constitution — known as a Blaine Amendment — that forbids using any public money “directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination or religion.” The church and preschool sued the state, citing the First Amendment, but lost in a federal district court and a federal appellate court upheld the decision by the state.

Now the Supreme Court will hear the case, with arguments set to begin April 19, and the decision could determine the fate of Blaine Amendments across the country. The high court just returned to a full complement of justices, with President Trump successfully placing his first nominee, the conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, on the court to take the seat of Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch may well be the deciding vote in this case.

If the state is required to pay for the new playground, it would also be required to pay for a new roof and for any other expenses incurred by religious schools. You see where this is heading.

There won’t be more money for public schools, there will be less.

Robert Natelson, a retired constitutional law professor who is allied with the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute, writes in this opinion article that the Supreme Court may well strike down the state prohibitions on funding religious schools (known as “baby Blaine Amendments) because of their origins in anti-Catholic bias. If this happened, it would pave the way for government to divert public funding to the vouchers for religious schools that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos advocates for.

The Blaine Amendment was proposed by Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives James G. Blaine in 1875. Blaine was an ambitious politician from Maine who ran for president in 1876, 1880, and 1884. He was interested in a wide range of issues, including trade, monetary policy, and foreign affairs. He is remembered today for the Constitutional amendment he proposed, which passed the House but not the Senate:

“No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

Although the Blaine Amendment was not adopted as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it was adopted by many states and incorporated into their state constitutions to prohibit spending public money on religious schools.

Natelson is right that the public schools of the nineteenth century were deeply imbued with Protestant teachings and practices. I wrote about the battle between Protestants and Catholics in my history of the New York City public schools (The Great School Wars). The arrival of large numbers of Irish immigrants in the 1840s, mostly Catholic, concurred with the beginnings of public school systems in urban areas.

In New York City, Bishop John Hughes (later Archbishop Hughes) fought the local school authorities over the content of the textbooks, which contained anti-Catholic selections, and the daily Protestant prayers and rituals in the schools. Hughes became politically active and demanded equal funding for Catholic schools, since the public schools–in reality, as he said–were Protestant schools. Even if they cleansed the textbooks of Protestant views of history, he said, the schools would still fail to meet the needs of Catholic children for a Catholic education. He did not want nonsectarian schools; he wanted Catholic schools. He proposed that the state fund both Catholic public schools and Protestant public schools. He ultimately lost the battle, but he determined to build an independent Catholic school system that was privately supported to make sure that Catholic children were not exposed to the Protestant teachings in the public schools. His example eventually persuaded the American Catholic Church to require all parishes to open their own schools, and to expect all Catholic children to attend them.

The Protestants who then ran the “public schools” in New York City tried to placate Bishop Hughes by expurgating textbook content that he found offensive. Their efforts did not satisfy Bishop Hughes because he did not want nonsectarian public schools. He wanted schools that taught the Catholic religion to Catholic children. He established such a system. I personally hope that it thrives, with the support of private dollars, but not with public dollars.

In the 1840s and 1850s, the Know-Nothing Party formed to advocate for white Anglo-Protestant nativism and to harass Catholics and immigrants. The popular press was rife with cartoons ridiculing Catholics and articles warning about the Catholic menace. Prejudice against Catholics and Irish immigrants occasionally turned violent, and churches and convents were burned to the ground.

The Blaine Amendment appealed to anti-Catholic sentiment among the dominant Protestant majority (Blaine’s mother was Irish-Catholic, and as Natelson points out, there is no evidence that he was prejudiced). Blaine was a member of the moderate faction of the Republican party and a strong supporter of black suffrage. (Ironically, Archbishop Hughes of New York was an opponent of abolitionism.)

Natelson maintains that the anti-Catholic origins of the Blaine amendment are reason to overturn them.

But it seems to me even more plausible to argue that the public schools today are not “Protestant schools,” that they are thoroughly nonsectarian in character, and that they fulfill the original promise of the Blaine Amendment, which is to serve all children on equal terms, regardless of their religion.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling Engel v. Vitale in 1962, forbidding state-sponsored prayer in the public schools, the public schools no longer impose any religious prayers or practices, as were common in most public schools well into the twentieth century.

The motives of James G. Blaine or Catherine Beecher Stowe or Horace Mann or Henry Bernard or any of the other nineteenth century founders of public schools are irrelevant today. They matter less than the reality and practices of public schools today that the Blaine Amendments permit and protect.

Because of the states’ Blaine Amendments, public schools across the nation welcome children who are of every religion or no religion, whether Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, atheist, or any other belief.

To rule against the Blaine Amendments would open the door to subsidizing religious schools with public dollars. On many occasions, voucher advocates have asked voters to repeal their state’s Blaine amendment to allow vouchers for religious schools, and in every state, voters said no. Betsy DeVos and her husband sponsored a referendum in Michigan in 2000 to roll back that state’s ban on vouchers, and voters rejected their proposal overwhelmingly. A proposal to permit vouchers was rejected by voters in Utah in 2007. Jeb Bush promoted a referendum to change the state constitution in Florida in 2012 (he called it the “Florida Religious Freedom Amendment”), and despite its deceptive name (who would vote “no” to “religious freedom”?), voters decisively said no.

The voucher programs that now exist were installed by state legislatures circumventing their own state constitution and the will of the voters. The pro-voucher legislators say that the money goes to the family to spend wherever it wants, including religious schools. They go out of their way to try to disguise these voucher programs by calling them something else, like “opportunity scholarships,” “tax credits,” “education savings accounts,” “empowerment savings accounts.”

The legislators know that the public opposes funding vouchers for religious schools. Thus they try to avoid calling them what they are or calling for a public vote. Voters have repeatedly made clear that they do not want to pay their taxes to underwrite religious schools.

The founders were wiser than we are. The First Amendment states clearly that Congress is not allowed to establish any religion. The founders were well aware of the centuries of religious rivalry and factionalism that had brought constant war and bloodshed to Europe, and they did not wish to encourage it in their new nation. The word “education” does not appear in the Constitution. It is a responsibility left to the states. That does not mean that the federal government has no obligation to fund education, in support of the general welfare; it does. That does not mean that the federal government does not have the power to protect the civil rights of students; it does.

If the High Court takes up the state Blaine Amendments, I hope it will recognize that the founders knowingly decided to avoid state entanglement with religious establishments. Let the states decide what belongs in their state constitutions, by popular vote. Our public schools are no longer the Protestant public schools that Bishop Hughes fought against. They are an integral part of our democratic society. They are a public good, like the services of police and firefighters, like public beaches, libraries, and parks. Separation of church and state is a valuable principle that protects the church schools from government intervention and mandates. Religious liberty is best protected by keeping it separate from government dollars and government control.

(This article also appears on the Huffington Post.)

A reader posted a comment yesterday asking why I had a problem with religious schools receiving public funding. Aren’t there good religious schools. I pointed out that most of the religious schools that are funded by vouchers are not very good schools. The very good religious schools don’t have many seats available. The ones that do have seats available and need the money tend to be a certain type of Christian school that teaches creationism and uses textbooks that do not teach modern science, math, or history.

Then another comment arrived, this one from a man who is writing a book about education in Arizona.

I post this quote from a work in progress for the nice lady who wrote about Diane’s piece and asked whether there are good religious schools. Diane used a quote from me in the blog today.

Here are the Organizations already providing “scholarships” on the “tax credit” dime here in AZ. I am a proud Catholic School Graduate and I have grandchildren in Catholic Schools in New Hampshire.

Those choices were my parents and my children’s RELIGIOUS choice. They wanted their children indoctrinated into the Catholic Faith.

Catholic schools have their history in anti-Catholic sentiments going back to the KNOW NOTHING PARTY and anti-immigrant attitudes in the 1840s. There was a time when it was a “mortal sin” for Catholics to attend public school if a Catholic School was available..

We in AZ live in a state that allows a “Christian Scholarship” fund that doesn’t include any Catholic, or for that matter Mormon schools, that is a RED FLAG.

I ask the following.

How is it that the Senate president of the Arizona State Senate, can simultaneously be the executive director of a $17,064,168 organization, The Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization Inc., while having control over all of the bills that come up for voting in the Senate including those that benefit his organization?

o This while collecting a salary and other compensation of $145,705 per annum in 2014-2015 for directing the ACSTO.
 Source IRS Form 990 FY 2013: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/860/931/2014-860931047-0b056c5d-9.pdf

o Again the question is asked, “Politically would this be considered “permissible” if the organization was dedicated to promoting Catholic Schools and run by the Senate President who happened to be the Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix?

o Researching the Organization in question one finds a list of the “participating schools”. That list which is provided below is devoid of any Catholic or Mormon Schools. Do they not fit the organization’s definition of Christian Schools? Would having a Muslim or Hindu Tax Credit group be okay with the legislature? How about an ATHEIST School?

 Bethany Christian School
 Christian Academy of Prescott
 Flagstaff Community Christian School
 Joy Christian School
 North Valley Christian Academy
 Northwest Christian School
 Paradise Valley Christian Prep
 Scottsdale Christian Academy
 Trinity Christian School (Prescott)

I am sure these are good programs but I have met some of their leadership and a lot of them ascribe to the philosophy that the world is 6000 years old.

• Catholic Education Arizona is an IRS 501(c) (3) nonprofit charitable organization and has never accepted gifts designated for individuals. Per state law, a school tuition organization cannot award, restrict or reserve scholarships solely on the basis of donor recommendation. A taxpayer may not claim a tax credit if the taxpayer agrees to swap donations with another taxpayer to benefit either taxpayer’s own dependent. This new law changes that.

o The rules for donating to a Catholic Educational Program speak volumes to the previous complaint regarding what is a Christian School. It required separate rules to “allow” the donations to go to Catholic Schools. The restrictions make it impossible for one to donate for their own child’s (or grandchildren’s) tuition.

 This is a taxpayer funded way to provide the scholarships that Catholics used to provide in their donations to the church of their choice.

 The leadership at this charity received compensation of $131,115 in 2013-2014. This was on revenue of $16,269,022.
 Source: IRS FORM 990 See: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/860/937/2014-860937587-0b8e0571-9.pdf

“Freedom to choose” for religious purposes has always been an option in this country. Catholics chose to create Catholic Schools. Jewish parents chose schools based at their Synagogues. There are Hindu Schools and Muslim Schools. These faiths funded this choice with sacrifice and tuitions that were subsidized by their church, synagogue or mosque, not by diverting funds meant to support the public schools to their religion.

• Jewish Tuition Organization is another 501 C specifically to provide Scholarship or Grants to Attend Jewish Primary and Secondary Schools. http://www.jtophoenix.org/take-the-credit/

o The Executive Director at the Jewish Tuition Organization has a salary of $70.000 as of the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year. This is on Revenue of $2,922,316.

o Form 990 FY 2013 JTO: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/860/970/2014-860970081-0b26cdec-9.pdf

Usually a new presidency has a honeymoon period, a time of good feeling and high poll numbers. As they battle for their policies and legislation, their poll numbers change, for better or worse.

Newsweek reports that Trump and his cabinet have very low approval ratings.

The cabinet member with the lowest approval rating is Betsy DeVos at 34.5%. She is highly divisive because her agenda is unpopular.

Parents across the nation understand that DeVos is an enemy of public schools. She doesn’t understand the purpose of community schools as the center of a community. Nearly two-thirds of the public reject her agenda.

That’s good news. It means in state after state, we can mobilize, organize, protest, and defeat her.

Dana Goldstein, one of the best education writers, now reports for the New York Times.

In this article, she describes the rush to expand vouchers for religious schools in Iowa.

You don’t have to look far to find funding by Betsy DeVos and the Koch brothers.

“Despite Republican control of the governor’s mansion and both houses of the State Legislature, proposals to significantly expand school choice programs in Iowa are stalled, at least for now. The pushback has come from groups traditionally opposed to the idea — Democrats, school districts, teachers’ unions and parents committed to public schools — but also from some conservatives concerned about the cost to the state.

“Iowa is one of 31 states where legislators have proposed creating or expanding school choice programs this year, without Washington even lifting a finger. Even if just a few of the bills pass, the number of children attending private schools with public money could greatly increase, one reason the proposals are meeting resistance.

“There is a national discussion about this, and obviously Donald Trump has brought it up,” said State Representative Walt Rogers, chairman of the House Education Committee. He said a modest expansion in Iowa remained possible this year. “I tell people, ‘This discussion isn’t going away.’”

“A powerful force in the movement is Mr. Trump’s secretary of education, the philanthropist Betsy DeVos. She has spent decades arguing that public schools have a monopoly on education and fighting for tax dollars to be available for private tuition.

“Mary Kakayo and her daughter Alma, 9, who attends St. Theresa Catholic School in Des Moines. The state covers more than half of Alma’s $3,025 tuition. Credit Kathryn Gamble for The New York Times
The issue is so important to her that she has sought to insert it into almost every statement she has made in her new role — even when it was an awkward fit, such as when she described historically black colleges as being created by school choice, when in reality they were formed because black students had been barred from traditional colleges.

“As education secretary, Ms. DeVos has limited ability to carry out school choice nationwide, at least without action from Congress. But her previous investments as a philanthropist are paying dividends.

“In 2013 and 2014, the most recent years for which financial disclosures are available, several organizations associated with Ms. DeVos invested over $7 million in school choice lobbying efforts in states now considering new bills. Americans for Prosperity, the activist group founded by the Koch brothers, and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council are also pushing private school choice in statehouses across the country.

“The number of American students benefiting from private school choice programs now is relatively small. Estimates by EdChoice, the organization founded by Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago economist who first introduced the idea of vouchers, put the number at 446,000 this year, out of a total school-age population of 56 million. (Three million attend public charter schools, which Ms. DeVos also has championed and which generally do not accept vouchers.)

“Advocates say that expanding private school choice would allow parents to remove children from public schools that are not meeting their needs, and note that surveys show parents in existing programs have high satisfaction rates. Competition from private schools, they say, can help public schools improve.

“A lot of families want to have the choice,” Gov. Terry E. Branstad of Iowa said at a rally in January. “We want to make sure all those choices are available, and are as affordable as possible.”

“Traditional school voucher programs, which exist in 15 states and the District of Columbia, allow the government to pay private schools, many of them religious, directly. Tax credit scholarships, like the one that helps pay tuition for Ms. Kakayo’s daughter, are a newer and growing form of school choice. They allow individuals and corporations to receive credit on their state income taxes for donations to nonprofits that provide tuition aid to students. Iowa’s program, currently used by 11,000 students, has income limits — $73,800 for a family of four — and the average scholarship award is only $1,583.

“Iowa is one of the states where legislators this year proposed education savings accounts, an even more expansive benefit. The accounts give parents state money each year — under one proposal, in the form of a $5,000 debit card — that they can use on private school tuition, home schooling costs, online education or tutoring.

“Ms. Kakayo said she would welcome further tuition support from the state, which would allow her to save money for college for Alma and her younger sister, Anna-Palma, who also attends St. Theresa. Under one proposal, after a student graduates from high school, any money left in the account could be used for tuition at in-state colleges. “It would be very, very helpful,” she said.

“Both sides of the debate over the proposals ran marketing campaigns. A television ad from the Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education, a group Ms. DeVos has financially supported, said that “education savings accounts give parents the right to choose a school that meets their child’s needs.” The ad cited smaller class sizes and individual teacher attention, but did not use the term “private school.”

“A competing social media campaign by an online group called Iowans for Public Education satirically compared the accounts to “park savings accounts” that would allow parents to spend tax dollars on country club fees instead of public playgrounds.

“Opponents have called the programs a giveaway to religious institutions. All but five of the 140 schools currently participating in the program are Catholic or Protestant, and the Diocese of Des Moines is among those lobbying for the expansion….

“It is unclear, however, how much public support exists for any expansion. A Des Moines Register poll of 802 Iowans in February found that 58 percent opposed using public funds to pay for private education, while 35 percent supported the idea.

“Both public and private school leaders extol the excellence of public schools in Iowa — it had the nation’s highest high school graduation rate in 2015 — and speak proudly of cooperation between the two sectors.”

So, the billionaires want vouchers to disrupt the nation’s most successful school system.

Janet Reitman, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone and author of “Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion,” investigated the like-minded evangelical world of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in this article.

The appointment of DeVos is a big win, she says, in the religious right’s crusade to capture control of American culture. “Her appointment as education secretary marks the crowning achievement of the Christian right’s campaign to infiltrate America’s secular institutions.”

Reitman documents the evangelical organizations that have carefully prepared the way for this moment, building power in state races and now wining the presidency. There is irony, to be sure, in the fact that Donald Trump was their instrument to win national power since he embodies the antithesis of their values in his own life.

The DeVos family is part of a super-rich cabal of the right that has worked behind the scenes for many years to create institutions that would advance their policies and values.

The DeVos family – which includes 91-year-old patriarch and Amway co-founder Richard “Rich” DeVos Sr., his wife, Helen, their four children and their spouses – has been one of the driving forces behind a stealth campaign powered by a small group of Republican billionaires to chip away at America’s secular institutions: the pig bones, so to speak, of our society. According to a recent analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, the family, whose net worth is estimated at $5.6 billion, gave $10 million to national GOP candidates and committees during the 2016 cycle alone. But this amount pales to the gargantuan sums they have channeled into state and local races, evangelical and free-market think tanks, advocacy groups, foundations, PACs, Super PACs and other dark-money organs that have effectively created a shadow political party within the GOP.

Regular attendees at the Koch brothers’ biannual summits, the DeVoses have been healthy benefactors of several Koch-seeded groups that advance an anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda, including the charitable arm of Americans for Prosperity and the FreedomWorks Foundation. What distinguishes the DeVoses within the Kochs’ circle of power, however, is their conservative Christian worldview, which over the past four decades has helped fuel what is now a $1.5 billion infrastructure composed of thousands of churches and “parachurch” ministries, as well as Christian TV, radio and Internet channels; Facebook pages and other forms of social media; books; conferences; camps; prayer groups; legal organizations – an entire universe that many Americans may be wholly unaware of. Through these channels has come a single, unified message merging social conservatism, free-market capitalism and American exceptionalism: the belief that the rights and freedoms spelled out in the U.S. Constitution were mandated by God….

A staple in modern evangelical teachings is the concept of Christian spheres of influence – or what the evangelical business guru Lance Wallnau dubbed the “Seven Mountains” of society: business, media, religion, arts and entertainment, family, government, and education – all of which urge the faithful to engage in secular culture in order to “transform” it. The goal is a sweeping overhaul of society and a merging of church and state: elevating private charity over state-run social services, returning prayer to school and turning the clock back on women’s and LGBTQ rights. It would also be a system without a progressive income tax, collective bargaining, environmental regulation, publicly funded health care, welfare, a minimum wage – a United States guided by a rigorously laissez-faire system of “values” rather than laws….

What became clear as the 2000s progressed was just how much these two agendas had fused. Under the direction of Charles and David Koch, and with increasing influence from the likes of the DeVos family, the Republican big tent shifted, from the Grand Old Party to what one longtime strategist who’s spent years mapping these networks refers to as the “Grand New Alliance” of libertarianism, populism and religious conservatism. (In the last election cycle, the DeVoses pledged $1.5 million to Freedom Partners Action Fund, which has been called the Koch network’s “secret bank.”) This new perspective, sometimes called the “biblical worldview,” was being sold at special “pastor policy briefings” across the country, in the hopes of politicizing the evangelical leaders who would then, in turn, rally their troops. At one I attended in Orlando, in 2012, David Barton, a former vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and a leading Christian nationalist, patiently explained to a room of Florida pastors why a radically reduced federal government was part of God’s plan. Jesus, for example, was opposed to the capital-gains tax, Barton said, citing passages in the books of Romans and Matthew.

“Without the libertarians and Tea Party brand, the Christian right would still be somewhat on the fringe of American politics,” the strategist, who asked for anonymity, explains. “But with the economic message, now we’ve got something that is more powerful and more dangerous from a progressive point of view.”

The result has been sweeping electoral power: According to figures published in The Washington Post, in states where the Koch network is most active, including the DeVoses’ home state of Michigan, Republicans control 100 percent of the state legislative majorities, 80 percent of governors, 77 percent of senators and 73 percent of U.S. House members. In 2016, evangelicals and born-again Christians constituted 43 percent of Trump’s total vote. Conservative Christians have been tapped to occupy the top Cabinet posts in the departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; they are also set to serve as the president’s director of National Intelligence and head of the CIA. The vision is simple, as the political strategist puts it: “What they want is for churches and nonprofits and business to run the country.”

The issue that Betsy and Dick DeVos adopted as their own is school choice. They ignored its racist origins and concentrated on selling it to black and brown communities. Their highest priority was vouchers to allow public money to flow to religious schools. When their effort to revise the Michigan state constitution to permit vouchers was revpbuffed by voters in 2000, they embraced charters as the best vehicle to undermine “government schools.”

Betsy DeVos became the chairwoman of several nonprofits that were consolidated to become the national powerhouse behind the movement: the American Federation for Children. Along with its tax affiliate, the Alliance for School Choice, the organization published glossy brochures featuring pictures of smiling children of every race, with endorsements from African-American and Democratic politicians, including Sen. Cory Booker, then an upstart city councilman from Newark, New Jersey, who joined the board of Alliance for School Choice in 2002.

But the movement’s real agenda was less about helping black families than creating a nationwide push for school choice. Leading the charge was the Great Lakes Education Project, or GLEP, a Michigan-based group created by the DeVoses to strong-arm state legislators. The result was a complete overhaul of the Michigan legislature. “In education policy, there would be times where they didn’t have votes – maybe 10 or 15 Republicans who didn’t want to vote for totally expanding the charter-school cap,” says Brandon Dillon, who served in the Michigan Statehouse before becoming the state Democratic chair. “And they would slowly, through the speaker of the house, bring them in, one by one, and basically threaten them with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent against them in the primary.” Though the voucher fight had been lost, charter schools, which receive government funding but operate independently of the public-school system (and are seen by conservative policy groups as a gateway drug to privatization) sprang up across the state.

At the national level, Dick and Betsy DeVos founded a group called All Children Matter, which funded PACs to repeat the process in multiple states. In 2003, its first year, ACM spent $7.6 million “directly impacting statewide and state legislative elections in 10 targeted states,” according to its media materials, winning 121 out of 181 races, “phenomenally successful for a political organization.” Thirty states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of school-choice legislation on the books. Some of the most expansive are in Louisiana, Arizona and Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels, backed by ACM, launched a private-school vouchers program in 2011. Two years later, then-Gov. Mike Pence greatly expanded the program, creating what Mother Jones described as “a $135 million annual bonanza almost exclusively benefiting private religious schools.”

The downside of this, as became clear in public-school systems across the country, is charter schools and voucher programs entice parents with the promise of more “options,” while weeding out the children that neither charters nor private schools have the capacity to educate. Many parents have opted for “choice,” only to be turned away. This is particularly acute with regard to kids with behavioral issues like attention-deficit disorder. “The words are ‘Your child may be better served elsewhere,’ ” says one Michigan legislator.”

Her goal: diminish the role of government, rely on the private sector.

To see that philosophy at work, Reitman traveled to Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan, home of the DeVos family and Amway. There she interviewed a man who works for the family and praised their generosity:

“If there’s a kid on the corner without a coat, the city will rally behind him and there’ll be hundreds of coats donated,” Ross says. “But very rarely does anybody take the time to ask, ‘Why doesn’t he have a coat?’ ”

Duke University reports on North Carolina’s voucher program after three years.

The report adds to the growing evidence that “escaping” a public school to a religious or other private school does not “save” children.

Findings.

Vouchers may be as much as $4,200, far below the tuition of elite private schools ( which don’t have empty seats and are unlikely to accept students with low test scores anyway).

” The number of children receiving vouchers has increased from approximately 1,200 in the first year to 5,500 in 2016-17. The General Assembly has authorized an additional 2,000 vouchers for each year over the next decade, bringing the total to 25,000 by 2027.”

The current annual expenditure is $60 million. By 2027, the program will have cost $900 million.

 Based on limited and early data, more than half the students using vouchers are performing below average on nationally-standardized reading, language, and math tests. In contrast, similar public school students in NC are scoring above the national average.”

93% of the vouchers are used at religious schools.

There is virtually no accountability for voucher schools. “Accountability measures for North Carolina private schools receiving vouchers are among the weakest in the country. The schools need not be accredited, adhere to state curricular or graduation standards, employ licensed teachers, or administer state End-of-Grade tests.”

Vouchers are evidence-free. Rifhtwing ideologues believe that choice is the goal of choice. They promise dramatic gains that never materialize. One can only conclude that they they don’t care about the children because choice is an end in itself.

When I visited Notre Dame a few years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting with a class of students preparing to become teachers in a program called ACE (Alliance for Catholic Education). ACE is considered the Catholic version of TFA, but it is far more serious and demanding than TFA. It is not a stepping stone to a job in finance, but a commitment to teach in difficult circumstances at low pay on behalf of a Catholic vision of social justice. The ACE students take classes during their undergraduate years to prepare them to teach; they have mentors while they are teaching; they live in community while teaching; they are paid far less than their counterparts in public schools; they return to Notre Dame for a summer of study; and they take teaching as a serious commitment. Father Scully at Notre Dame, who leads the program, is one of the most inspirational people I have ever met. I was honored to be his host for dinner in my home when he visited New York City, where he said a Mass for a small group of Catholic friends.

All of this is background for you to understand this impassioned letter written by ACE alumni to current ACE teachers.

The letter notes that Trump and DeVos chose to St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, where there are ACE teachers. The letter writers warned that Catholic schools should not allow themselves to be used by Trump to advance his policies, which run directly counter to the social justice mission of ACE educators and their mission. They wish it to be known that they do not want ACE or the children it serves to be used to legitimatize hateful policies by the Trump administration.

The letter begins like this:

Dear Leadership of the Notre Dame Alliance for Catholic Education Academies,

We, the undersigned alumni of the Alliance for Catholic Education, write to express our concerns about President Trump’s visit to St. Andrew Catholic School, a Notre Dame ACE Academy, in Orlando, Florida on Friday, March 3, 2017. We also write to offer our prayers for the St. Andrew school leadership, community and particularly the students in this time of unexpected attention.

This visit is an important symbolic moment that should be addressed by advocates of Catholic education. St. John XXIII encouraged unity in essentials, liberty in doubtful matters and charity throughout. We believe the essential unifying principle of serving the least among us is affronted by much of President Trump’s policy and rhetoric. The visit, regardless of its genesis, could be taken as tacit approval within the broader Catholic education community for these policies, including the scapegoating of immigrants, refugees and the economically marginalized in service of a nationalist stance and the targeting of Muslims as enemies of Christianity. Catholic schools have heroically served what Pope Francis has called the bruised, hurting and dirty Church. We fear this visit will associate Catholic schools with policies that violently conflict with their Gospel mission, and therefore ask ACE make a statement affirming our bedrock shared values. Protection of the least of these is the responsibility of us all, and especially those with the platforms to be heard.

Our first concern is that this visit has been designed to use the children and school community of St. Andrew as props by an administration that opposes core aspects of their identity. The primary focus of a visit to a Catholic school should be celebrating the mission of that school. Of course, politicians often use community organizations to advance their agendas. Further, past presidents of both party affiliations have visited Catholic schools to celebrate their identity and academic achievement. However, given the incompatibility of President Trump’s agenda with Catholic schools’ mission, we are concerned that this visit takes advantage of Catholic schools, students, families and communities without humanizing or benefiting them. President Trump did not visit a Catholic school during the recent Catholic Schools Week (though he did tweet about it). Why should his first visit to a Catholic school serve to benefit him and his agenda?

Our second concern is this visit could be taken as tacit support of policies that run counter to the mission of Catholic education and attack the very dignity of those served by Catholic schools. As current and former classroom educators, we know for many teachers, children and their families, President Trump’s campaign and administration have placed new stress upon the most vulnerable among us. For those of us in classrooms, we are facing challenging conversations about what the future holds for the children, youth and families we serve. As all those touched by ACE are well aware, many children in Catholic schools are already hard-pressed to maintain focus on their day-to-day learning given the challenges they face due to their race, class, language or country of origin outside of school. We know the St. Andrew community has worked tirelessly for decades to serve marginalized communities in Orlando. But this visit has not been designed to celebrate that fact; instead, it provides a platform for President Trump to showcase his marginalizing policies.