Archives for category: Separation of church and state
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Texas: Dan Patrick Wants to Replace Public Schools with Christian Schools

By dianeravitch
December 18, 2024 //
8

Dan Patrick is the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, a powerful position in the state. He used to be a rightwing radio talk show host, a little Rush Limbaugh. Now he’s in a position to do real damage, not just blow off steam. He recently told the superintendents of rural schools that the state couldn’t afford to give them any new money, although not long ago Governor Greg Abbott bragged about a $30 billion surplus and about cutting property taxes.

Chris Tomlinson, opinion writer for The Houston Chronicle, eviscerated Dan Patrick’s homegrown bull in this article.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has laid out his plan for dismantling public schools, even if it means failing to produce a workforce that will keep Texas’ economy going.

The man who calls himself a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third exercises an iron fist over the Texas Senate. He recently told the Texas Association of Rural Schools & Texas Association of Midsize Schools not to expect a significant increase in state funding, which has been unchanged since 2019 despite rampant inflation.

Instead, Patrick has promised to divert taxpayer money to private, mostly Christian schools backed by his billionaire benefactors.

Texas Republicans are heading into the 89thLegislature in honey-badger mode, heedlessly pursuing ideological goals regardless of public opinion. Because just like the honey badger that has become an Internet meme, Patrick “don’t care.”

“We’re not underfunding you in our view,” Patrick told school superintendents on Dec. 6, my colleague Jeremy Wallace reported in his newsletter. “We are funding you the most we can.”

Correction: it’s the most he’s willing to do.

The state provides a basic allotment of $6,160 per student, which is $4,000 less than the national average. School districts are slashing budgets and laying off staff due to inflation. Advocates have asked for another $1,000 per student to keep providing essential services.

“I’m just being honest with you; there is no way we can increase the student allotment by $1,000,” Patrick said.

That’s a lie. The state left $30 billion unspent in 2023 when Patrick refused to increase school funding until lawmakers approved taxpayer funding for religious private schools. An extra $1,000 per student would cost $14 billion, well within the budget.

Patrick frequently claims he supports public schools, but actions speak louder than words. He criticizes teachers, prioritizes tax cuts and praises religious education, falling back on a clichéd conservative playbook.

Step One: Underfund and hamstring a government service, in this case, public schools, until it starts falling apart. Step Two: Blame underpaid, under-resourced public servants for the failure and proclaim only the private sector can help. Step Three: Send taxpayer money to your cronies to provide the service, with a significant markup, and make the public pay more for it.

The biggest campaign donors to Texas’s Republican leaders in recent years have loudly demanded an end to public education as we know it. They believe government-run schools indoctrinate students with the wrong ideas about justice, equality and tolerance. They want private schools to teach their values with taxpayer subsidies.

Oil billionaires Tim Dunn and Ferris Wilks have spent tens of millions backing Christian nationalist activists and candidates to pass a school voucher bill. Patrick is one of the largest beneficiaries of their largesse and has backed taxpayer money for Christian schools since he was a senator.

A Pennsylvania billionaire who hates public schools, Jeff Yass, gave Gov. Greg Abbott $6 million, the largest campaign donation in state history, to punish rural Republican lawmakers who opposed school vouchers in 2023. Most of those lawmakers either retired or lost their seats in the GOP primary.

Abbott and Patrick say they have the votes necessary to pass a school voucher bill next year. Past promises to boost funding for public schools now appear off the table.

Public schools are much more than a benefit for parents; they create Texas’s workforce. Future success at work is directly tied to quality pre-kindergarten and good schools.

Private schools do not face the same regulation or scrutiny as public schools. Private schools are free to teach whatever the sponsoring group wants outside of a few minimum requirements. Private school students are not required to take the state’s standardized STAAR Test.

Polls show most Texans support public schools and want the state to spend more. But with a handful of donors writing multimillion-dollar checks, Patrick has entered the honey-badger stage of one-party rule.

Most Texans and major corporations think women should have more reproductive rights. Patrick don’t care.

Most Texans support legalized gambling to boost local economies. Patrick don’t care.

Most Texans support legalizing marijuana. Patrick don’t care; he wants to ban the $4 billion-a-year hemp industry.

Republicans have controlled every statewide office for 30 years. At the state and national level, conservatives control every branch of government. The GOP is feeling strong, like they honey badger.

Patrick wants Texas and the United States to be a Christian nation and Texas laws to reflect his interpretation of the Bible. Sabotaging public schools is a key step to fulfilling that dream.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Cruelty, Education Industry, Extremism, Funding, Privatization, Religion, Separation of church and state, Texas, Vouchers

Ohio: Laws Advance to Protect Voucher Schools While Punishing Public Schools

By dianeravitch
December 18, 2024 //
3

David Pepper blasts the Republican legislators in Ohio for relieving private voucher schools of any burdens associated with transparency and accountability, while simultaneously threatening to close the public schools with the lowest test scores every year.

He writes about the dangerous shenanigans of the gang in the Legislature that hates public schools:

So the bill that impressed me was an attempt to do something about this growing black hole. 

Specifically, the bill would have:

2) required that private schools receiving vouchers administer the same standardized tests that public school students take, allowing an apples to apples comparison of the private school’s performance;

1) required that private schools receiving vouchers provide an annual report on how they are spending the public dollars they receive (and post that report on-line);

3) required that schools provide data on the income of students/families that receive vouchers along with other scholarships. (In states like Ohio, where they have removed all income limitations on vouchers recipients, the vast majority of voucher recipients were already attending, and could already afford, the private school they now use the voucher to pay for).

Again, these would be the bare minimum of safeguards for this out-of-control approach.

Which is, of course, exactly why the provisions were ultimately stripped out of the bill that ultimately passed the House Education Committee (where the original bill had been submitted).

Note: One of the points made by private school advocates was that the tests used to measure public school outcomes were not a good measure of the work they did.

So as the billions flow to private schools through vouchers, we taxpayers still don’t know how the funds are actually being spent. And we still don’t have an apples-to-apples comparison to see if all this unaccountable money is actually leading to improved or worse education results. (Other data show the answer is “worse”).

But for Public Schools…Shut them Down

So that’s the treatment of private schools receiving public dollars via vouchers. 

But wouldn’t you know it? For Ohio’s publicschools, constantly the target of attack and criticism, we see the exact opposite approach.

Rushing through the current “lame duck” Ohio legislative session is a brand new bill that takes seriously the same standardized tests the voucher-funded private schools convinced lawmakers they need not take (remember, they testified it’s not a good measure of their work). So seriously, the new bill proposes that all Ohio public school buildings that fall in the bottom five and 10 percent of two measures (both determined by standardized tests) for three years be shut down. 

Under the bill, local school boards would be forced either “to fire its principal and majority of staff or turn over operations to a private entity, charter, or another district.”

Public school advocates have pointed out many of the flaws of this approach, including that many of the entities that would “take over” these schools have no experience providing K-12 education at all. They’ve also pointed out that this approach bears similarities to the failed top-down approach from a 2015 bill which created Academic Distress Commissions for struggling districts. After stripping away local control, the Commissions did not generate improvements, and the approach was ultimately repealed.

But bigger picture, of course, is the differential treatment of the two systems: One type of publicly funded Ohio schools doesn’t have to provide even the bare minimum of accountability and transparency, while the other set would face turmoil and even shutdowns for failing to meet certain criteria not applied to the first group. 

It’s yet another blatant tipping of the scales towards privatizing public education.

Take Action

They are trying to rush this bill through the Ohio Senate’s Education Committee tomorrow. Here are steps you can take to stop it:

  • Contact your State Rep. Tell them the Ohio Senate is trying to pass a massive new school closure bill (SB 295) without any input from the House. Ask them, “Shouldn’t the House get a say on this issue??”
  • WHAT TO SAY:
    • SB 295 would remove local control from elected school board members and parents
    • The state should not be making big, closed-door decisions with little to no community involvement.
    • Our students deserve safe, equitable, fully-resourced, engaging schools in their own area! In most cases, closing local schools is bad for our communities and bad for Ohio. In ALL cases, parents and students should be heavily involved in the decision-making processes!
  • FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Categories Accountability, Corruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Funding, Inequity, Ohio, Privatization, Religion, Separation of church and state, Standardized Testing, Vouchers

Chalkbeat: Republicans Promote Religion in the Public Schools

By dianeravitch
December 15, 2024 //
8

It is absolutely appropriate to study about religion in history classes in public schools. History has been deeply influenced by religious groups, for good and ill.

But it is not okay to promote religion in public schools. That’s indoctrination.

State leaders in red states want to restore religious practice into the schools, despite the fact that students come from many different faith traditions, or none at all.

This movement is led by evangelical Christians.

Chalkbeat reports:

The Texas State Board of Education gave its approval to a Bible-infused curriculum for elementary students in the latest test of the line between church and state in public school classrooms. Proponents of the new curriculum say they’re not looking to proselytize or convert students. The Bible is a foundational text of western civilization, and understanding it is key to understanding everything from common phrases in the English language to major developments in history and society, they argue.

“Scrubbing biblical references from school curriculum may seem like a step toward inclusivity, but given how deeply such phrases and allusion are embedded in the language, such an effort would more likely impose a form of illiteracy on students,” American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Robert Pondiscio wrote earlier this year in The 74.

But opponents say the curriculum goes much further than simply helping students understand Biblical references. Jewish Texans and other religious minorities say the curriculum treats Christianity as a default truth. Writing in The Forward, Caryn Tamber-Rosenau, a Jewish Biblical scholar based in Houston, argues that the curriculum imposes 21st century American sensibilities on a challenging, ancient textwhile ignoring “the actual biblical material in favor of grafting onto biblical Israel what Protestant Christians do in churches today — what a coincidence.”

The Bluebonnet Learning curriculum is optional, but school districts will get a financial incentive for adopting it. 

Meanwhile, a federal judge found that Louisiana’s law requiring that schools display the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, but an appeals court said the law will be on hold only in the school districts that sued. Most schools in the state will have to display the Biblical mandates while the court case works its way through the system. 

And Oklahomans are suing over a requirement that schools in that state teach the Bible — and not just any Bible. The state’s request for proposals was so narrow that one of the few Bibles that fit the requirement was a $60 edition endorsed by president-elect Donald Trump.

Just think: Trump will get a cut on every Bible sold to the state of Oklahoma!

Categories Bigotry, Ethics, Extremism, Religion, Separation of church and state

Voters Defeated the Dark Money Behind Vouchers

By dianeravitch
December 9, 2024 //
3

David Armiak of the Center for Media and Democracy reviewed the recent defeat of vouchers in three states: Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska. He points out that vouchers have never won a state referendum. Voters have always said “No” to sending public money to private and religious schools.

Who pays for the state campaigns on behalf of vouchers?

Billionaires.

The two most reliable funders of voucher proposals are billionaires Betsy DeVos and Charles Koch.

The billionaires keep pushing vouchers even though we now know that they are subsidies for families whose children are already enrolled in private schools. And we now know that vouchers don’t help public school students who use them. And we now know that vouchers are a huge drain on state budgets and always cost more than predicted.

DeVos and Koch like to fund failure. Their goal is not to improve education but to destroy public schools.

Armiak writes:

The dark money group Advance Colorado Action (ACA, formerly Unite for Colorado) qualified the ballot measure, but most of the identifiable money spent pushing its passage came from a related advocacy group, Colorado Dawn.

Unite for Colorado was founded in 2019 by Dustin Zvonek, the former vice president for strategy and innovation and state director for Charles Koch’s astroturf operation Americans for Prosperity. As of 2022, Unite for Colorado provided Colorado Dawn with almost half of its revenue ($2.7 million out of $5.9 million).

Both groups have been hit with multiple campaign finance complaints in recent years, including one last month against Colorado Dawn for sending misleading text messages and spending money to influence a ballot measure without registering as an issue committee.

Colorado Dawn reported spending nearly $1.9 million as of October 23 to back Amendment 80, The Colorado Sun reported.

In Kentucky, voters in every county rejected Amendment 2 by a margin of almost two to one (65%).

If it had passed, the state constitution would have been amended to allow public funding to go to private schools.

A record-breaking $14 million was spent by groups in favor and against the amendment, Kentucky Public Radio reported. The Protect Freedom PAC pulled in $5 million from school privatization billionaire Jeff Yassand spent $4 million on ads supporting the measure.

Other groups spending in favor of the amendment included Kentucky Students First ($2.5 million); Empower Kentucky Parents ($1.25 million); Empower Kentucky Parents PAC ($800,000); and the state chapter of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity ($328,000).

Empower Kentucky Parents received $1 million from American Federation for Children, a group organized and funded by the billionaire DeVos family. Betsy DeVos served as secretary of education during Trump’s first term in office and now supports his plans to eliminate the department.

In Nebraska, 57% of voters supported a ballot measure (Referendum 435) to repeal a new state law that would have provided parents with $10 million in public funds per year in the form of vouchers for their children to attend private K–12 schools.

The Nebraska Examiner reported that Keep Kids First spent just $111,000 as of November 4 to prevent the repeal of the referendum in the Cornhusker state. The American Federation for Children is also the largest known donor so far to Keep Kids First, giving $561,500 in 2023–24.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Democracy, Education Industry, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Koch Brothers, Religion, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Josh Cowen Reviews Pete Hegseth’s Book About Saving American Education

By dianeravitch
December 9, 2024 //
22

Josh Cowen kindly agreed to write a review of Pete Hegseth’s book about American education, which appears on this blog exclusively!

Hegseth has a simple answer to the problems of education: give all students a voucher and expect that most will choose a classical Christian education.

Josh Cowen is Professor of Education Policy at Michigan State. His latest book is The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers (Harvard Education Press).

As you know, Pete Hegseth was a FOX News host who was nominated by President-Elect Trump to be Secretary of Defense. However, his appointment appears to be in jeopardy at this moment, due to allegations about his sexual exploits and drunken behavior.

Josh Cowen wrote:

Pete Hegseth’s Education Book: American Culture on the Decline, and Only Taxpayer-Funded Classical Christian Schools Can Save Us

I read Pete Hegseth’s book on education, Battle for the American Mind, so you don’t have to. Hegseth is Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Defense Secretary [at this writing], and a Fox News contributor, which means his various views on the military and his trove of televised commentary are going to get more scrutiny. But as someone who understands just how important education is to right-wing plans to remake America, I was neither surprised to learn that the would-be defense secretary had thoughts about schooling, nor hesitant to look at what Hegseth had to say.

So here are a few quick thoughts. Technically, Battle is a co-authored volume with a man named David Goodwin, an activist in the classical Christian education movement. The book is presented as a joint effort that melds Goodwin’s “research about Christianity, America’s founding, history, and education” with Hegseth’s apparently probing questions about those topics. It is, however, largely written in Hegseth’s own voice (being the relative celebrity between the two). 

When the book was first published in 2022, it became a bestseller. 

The first half of Battle is something of an indictment of American culture, politics, and education. Or more specifically, of the damage that progressives have done to all three. The second half of the book poses classical Christian education as the panacea. 

Hegseth (and Goodwin) try to establish early on the notion of “paideia,” which Goodwin apparently read about through the scholars Lawrence Cremin and Werner Jaeger, and in which Hegseth seems to have been taken interest. What is “paideia?” If you’re not terribly concerned with the various buzzwords in classical Christian education circles, it’s not especially important. But in those circles it’s something between an article of faith and what passes for an intellectual framework for their goals.

Basically, paideia is what creates culture: “Paideia is contained in that human part of the soul that makes us who we are…is common to a community…made up of ideas, presumptions, beliefs, affections, and ways of understanding that defines us (p. 52).”

Crucially, “paideia is shaped during childhood” and can be cultivated. And the “Western Christian Paideia (WCP) is a unique form of paideia in that it was intentionally developed and cultivated beginning with the Greeks” who proved “that education was a powerful influencer of paideia (p. 53).” Which makes education attractive to all belief systems. What gives American paideia so much appeal is its potential to meld the Greek tradition with a right-wing version of Christian virtue for future generations.

In typical right-wing fashion, Hegseth accuses Progressives from a century ago, and “the Left” today of what his own sect is doing. It’s the Left’s “indoctrination” of children that makes it so dangerous. Except, most of Battle is a half-screed, half-baked plan to focus on children generally and on their education specifically in a cultural (and, if needed, political) uprising against the Left. As Hegseth says: “the real battlefield isn’t colleges, it’s kindergartens.”

Along the way we meet the familiar bugaboos of right-wing American ideology today’s GOP party politics: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the teachers’ unions, critical race theory, DEI, Black Lives Matter, Howard Zinn, “cultural Marxism,” the Warren Court and—in a turn of a phrase that seems to have evoked any number of self-satisfied high-fives in right-wing media green rooms—the scourge of the “Covid-(16)19 Virus” in American schools. Get the idea?

Meanwhile, approved pop culture touchstones that serve almost as sources for the book’s counter-material include the movie Gladiator, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, the heroes in both the C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein series, (said to be a favorite of J.D. Vance as well), and more spot-quotes of dead philosophers than I care to count for this blog post. 

Honestly, Battle reads like a couple of 10th Grade AP History students crammed with a video series from Hillsdale College before knocking out their final term papers and hitting “send” before hitting the gym. It’s that profound. 

It would also be silly, if it weren’t also entirely an artifact of very real, very potent, and very present intentions on the American Right for education and for child-related policy. It’s easy to make fun of a couple of bros taken in by a smart-sounding Greek word like “paideia.” But when a possible future defense secretary draws from his experience in Afghanistan as evidence that paideia exists, and while malleable, cannot be imposed on other cultures, only grown from within—the “Afghan paideia” was too strong for Americans to impose our own on it, but now “we are losing it at home” (p. 57)—it’s worth paying attention. 

In this telling, American “democracy” is simply progressive “gospel” (p. 89) and is secondary to restoring the promise of American…paideia. 

It’s that kind of mindset—more than trust in the market, more than purported concerns for COVID-era learning loss, more than a genuine desire for all kids to have the education that best fits their needs—that truly gives the Right’s push for educational privatization its energy. 

Enter school vouchers—a “key element” of their goal. Hegseth and Goodwin close Battle with a call for voucher tax credits—not the direct appropriation kind coming from state budgets at the moment. The reason for that detail is mostly due to a desire to avoid government as a middle man (though make no mistake, the impact on public funding is the same). The goal here is to rebuild the American paideia through classical Christian education:

“Our hope (and plan),” Hegseth and Goodwin write, “is that most parents are clamoring to get their kids into the best local classical Christian school,” with “Jesus Christ at the center of all of it.” (p. 237). That hope and plan requires the “battle” in the book’s title—an insurgency protected by “the full Armor of God,” as they put it.

That phrase comes from the book of Ephesians in the Bible:

Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 

Understand that this “full armor” phrase comes specifically as the authors are discussing their “hope (and plan)” for publicly funded classical Christian schools.

As a Christian man myself—one who grew up in the same network of Catholic covenant communities as Justice Amy Coney Barrett—I know how prevalent this kind of thinking is among some members of my faith tradition. I would even call it fringe, and not widely held or fairly representative of a modest Christian.

Except that fringe is at the center of right-wing politics today, of right-wing education policymaking, and—quite possibly—at the highest levels of government, up to and including a Hegseth Pentagon and the Trump White House.

Editor’s note: We should be grateful that Hegseth was not chosen to be Secretary of Education.

Categories Education Industry, Extremism, Religion, Separation of church and state

Peter Greene: Evangelicals Are Knocking Down the Wall of Separation in Ohio, New Jersey, and Beyond

By dianeravitch
December 6, 2024 //
6

Evangelicals want to destroy the wall of separation between church and state and use public schools and public funds to indoctrinate others. we have seen this in many states, such as Texas, where Governor Abbott is using billionaire money to enable the state to pay for indoctrination of more students in religious schools.

One unusually active religious group is called Lifewise Academy. A friend in New Jersey wrote to tell me that parents are pushing back.

She wrote:

“LifeWise Academy has ambitious plans which take advantage of Zorach v. Clauson to pull kids out of public school classes, bringing them off campus for “bible studies.” In Ocean City, NJ, near where I live, an Evangelical Church is fighting to have the school board accept it. This map shows the scope of LifeWise’s current efforts

There is a grassroots movement to push back against these changes. https://parentsagainstlifewise.online/

Here is a recording of an informative zoom they conducted with NJ activists https://vimeo.com/1033697670/83f2dd97ea

Peter Greene writes here about the financial success of Lifewise Academy in Ohio.

He writes:

Christianists continue doing their best to force public education to bend to their brand of faith. In Ohio, legislators are now trying to create a whole new church-issued Get Out Of School Free card.

It has long been an option for schools to release students from school for part of the day to receive religious instruction, and districts have chosen to exercise that option or not as they see fit. The bill proposed on Ohio makes one simple change–instead of “may,” the law would read “shall.”

In other words, if parents demand their child be released for religious instruction, the schools must comply.

A key focus has been LifeWise Academy, an organization that has been capitalizing on the original Supreme Court ruling by delivering Bible study during the school day. Their focus is called The Gospel Project, and it is aimed at encouraging “true transformation that comes only from the gospel, not from behavior modification.” Every session is “doctrinally sound and thorough,” though whose doctrine, exactly, it follows is not made clear.

LifeWise is the brainchild of Joel Penton, who was a defensive tackle for the Ohio State football team. He graduated in 2007 (BA in Communications and Media Studies), then after what appears to be a two year gap, Penton got into the Christian Speakers Biz, starting Relevant Speakers Network, Stand for Truth Outreach, and LifeWise Academy, all based in Hilliard, Ohio.

Stand for Truth was an earlier version of the release time Bible study model as well as school assemblies, with a filed purpose of assisting “youth, youth organizations, schools and churches by providing seminars, educational materials, inspirational and motivational materials, books and other programs to help youth reach their full potential.”

The LifeWise 990 shows that it is, for legal purposes, a Stand for Truth under a new name, with the purpose unchanged. At SfT, Penton was drawing an $87K salary to handle a million-and-a-half dollar budget. The 2022 990 for LifeWise shows Penton with $41K in salary and $69K in other compensation, while LifeWise is handling $13 mill on revenue (more than double 2022) from “contributions, gifts, grants” and paying almost $6 mill in employee benefits and compensation to… I don’t know. The only other paid officials listed are Steve Clifton (COO) with $108K salary and $57K other, and treasurer David Kirkey with $31K salary. Almost $5 mill is listed as other salaries and wages, including program service expenses. They list no lobbying expense, but some mid-six figure numbers for advertising, office expenses, and travel. In all they took in almost $14 mill and spent about $9.5 mill.

Board members include Rev. Stephen Hubbard, pastor at Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Logan, Ohio; Brad Hulls, a real estate agent “and remodeling specialist” from Columbus. Figuring in the group’s history is Tim Stoller, a founding board member for Cross Over The Hill, an organization with a similar message. It was Stoller who approached Penton, leading to a combining of Stand for Truth and Cross Over The Hill to form LifeWise Academy.

LifeWise has expanded to multiple states, and it’s their work that the new Ohio bill is primarily aimed at, by requiring every school in Ohio to offer a LifeWise option (or something like it).

LifeWise has not experienced large growth by playing softball. One school board member recounted a story of being approached by LifeWise, first pleasantly, and then with veiled threats about re-election. “As a church, we can’t endorse political candidates, but we can educate people.” And last summer LifeWise got in a big fight with an Indiana father who volunteered for the group so that he could gain access to their materials, which he then posted on his website. LifeWise took him to court.The parent made a point that ought to be familiar to the culture panic crowd–that parents ought to be able to review the materials that were being used with students. LifeWise has also gone after a manwho created a map showing the locations of LifeWise schools.

The Akron Beacon Journal is among those opposing the proposed law, calling it “a dangerous crack forming in the wall that separates church and state.

The article continues. To finish reading, please open the link.

Curmudgucation is free today and forever. Your pledge is a lovely vote of confidence, and passing along a post is even better. Subscribing is best of all. 

Categories Extremism, Funding, Ohio, Religion, Separation of church and state

North Carolina: Vouchers Are Funding Indoctrination in Religious Schools

By dianeravitch
December 2, 2024 //
6

Justin Parmentier, an NBCT-certified high school teacher in North Carolina, has been scrutinizing the nonpublic schools that receive voucher money from the state. he found that nearly 90% are religious schools where discrimination and indoctrination are commonplace.

Parmenter remembers when now-disgraced Lt. Governor Mark Robinson opened a search for public schools that indoctrinate and came up with nothing.

Public funds in NC support religious schools that openly and egregiously indoctrinate students. Not a peep from the culture warriors. It wasn’t indoctrination they objected to; it was public schools.

Parmenter wrote the following in March 2024, before Robinson was disgraced by the CNN report on his history of posting on pornography websites. To call Robinson a hypocrite would be an understatement:

With billions of dollars now on tap for North Carolina’s private schools, and 88.2% of those dollars going to religious schools, scrutiny is rising over exactly what our taxes are supporting.

Private schools are legally able to discriminate against children, and many of North Carolina’s Christian schools deny admissions to students based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or learning disabilities.

For example, Fayetteville Christian School, which pocketed nearly $2 million in voucher dollars this school year, expressly bans students who practice specific religions like Islam and Buddhism, and they also bar LGBTQ+ students–whom they brand “perverted”–from attending.

North Raleigh Christian Academy won’t accept children with IQs below 90 and will not serve students who require IEPs (a document which outlines how a school will provide support to children with disabilities).

If this public funding of widespread discriminatory school practices rubs you the wrong way, I have bad news for you.

It gets worse.

That harmful indoctrination Mark Robinson was howling about a couple years ago in his disingenuous attempt to generate political momentum?  Turns out it’s real.  It just isn’t happening in the traditional public schools Robinson was targeting.

The Daniel Christian Academy is a private school in Concord, NC.  This school has received public dollars through school vouchers every year since Republicans launched the controversial Opportunity Scholarship voucher program in 2014-15 for a grand total of $585,776.

Daniel Academy’s mission is to “raise the next generation of leaders who will transform the heart of our nation” by equipping students “to enter the Seven Mountains of Influence.”

The Seven Mountains of Influence (also referred to as the Seven Mountains of Dominion or the Seven Mountains Mandate) refers to seven areas of society:  religion, family, education, government, media, arts & entertainment, and business.  Dominionists who follow this doctrine believe that they are mandated by God to control all seven of society’s “mountains,” and that doing so will trigger the end times.

The Seven Mountains philosophy has been around since the 70s, but it came to prominence about ten years ago with the publication of Lance Wallnau’s book Invading Babylon:  The Seven Mountains Mandate.  Wallnau touts himself as a consultant who “inspires visions of tomorrow with the clarity of today—connecting ideas to action,” and his book teaches that dominionists must “understand [their] role in society” and “release God’s will in [their] sphere of influence.”

Wallnau does caution his followers that messaging about taking control over all seven areas of society on behalf of God might freak out non dominionists, saying in 2011 that “If you’re talking to a secular audience, you don’t talk about having dominion over them. This … language of takeover, it doesn’t actually help…”

So why should North Carolinians care that their tax dollars are subsidizing this sort of indoctrination of children through private school vouchers?

I posed that question to Frederick Clarkson, a research analyst who has studied the confluence of politics and religion for more than three decades and lately has been focusing on the violent underbelly of Christian nationalists who want to achieve Christian dominion of the United States at all costs.  Here’s what Clarkson said:

North Carolina taxpayers should be concerned that they are helping to underwrite an academy for training children to become  warriors against not only the rights of others, but against democracy and its institutions.  The idea of the Seven Mountain Mandate is for Christians of the right sort to take dominion — which is to say power and influence — over the most important sectors of society. It is theocratic in orientation and its vision is forever. 

This is not something that is about liberals and conservatives . Most Christians including most evangelicals, Catholics, and mainline Protestants are deemed not just insufficiently Christian, but may be viewed as infested with demons, and standing in the way of the advancement of the Kingdom of God on Earth. And they will need to be dealt with.

Categories Bigotry, Democracy, Disruption, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, North Carolina, Religion, Separation of church and state

Texas: State Board Likely to Approve Biblical Lessons in Public Schools

By dianeravitch
November 22, 2024 //
33

Edward McKinley of the Houston Chronicle reports that the Texas State Board of Education is on track to approve Bible-based teaching in public schools. The Christian evangelicals are running the show in Texas, with help from Governor Gregg Abbot. They are knocking down the wall of separation between church and state with a sledgehammer. What about the rights of children whose parents are secular or not Christian?

He writes:

The Texas State Board of Education appeared on track to endorse a controversial set of new state-written lesson plans after narrowly defeating an effort to block it on Tuesday.

The lessons and textbooks, known collectively as Bluebonnet Learning, were drafted by the Texas Education Agency. The reading and language arts lessons integrate Biblical stories and characters and are viewed by many as connected to a national effort to return Christianity and prayer into public schools. 

They would likely face a legal challenge if adopted. The SBOE will vote on the curriculum as one of more than 100 sets of lesson plans and textbooks later this week. 

If approved, schools would have the option to use the plans and would receive extra funding if they do. 

The lesson plans have faced criticism from Democrats and some Republicans. Academics have warned that they include teachings from the Bible without contextualizing them as religious beliefs and downplay the role of racism and slavery in American history, while some on the right have argued they teach material too advanced for younger children.

But proponents say the materials are based on a scientific understanding of the best way to teach reading and they believe it will lead to higher standardized test scores.

“There’s a line between indoctrination or evangelism and education. In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” said Will Hickman, a Houston-area Republican who supported the Bluebonnet curriculum. Hickman added that districts can still choose whether or not to use the lesson plans….

The Bluebonnet curriculum covers kindergarten through 5th grade mathematics and reading, as well as middle school math and algebra…. 

A report from religious scholar David Brockman and the Texas Freedom Network, which has been critical of the lesson plans, said they could effectively turn public schools to Sunday schools by introducing Christian stories and ideas to young kids without contextualizing them properly as religious beliefs. There’s far more focus on Christianity and Jesus Christ than on other world religions, the report says. 

The lesson plans also faced criticism for their teaching of history and downplaying the role of slavery and racism in American history and to the founding fathers and other important American figures. 

Categories Curriculum, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom, Religion, Separation of church and state, Texas

Kentucky Catholic School Student: Vote NO on Vouchers

By dianeravitch
October 31, 2024 //
4

This post appeared originally in the Louisville Courier-Journal. It has since been posted by The Network for Public Education, whose contents are curated by Peter Greene.

Liam Amick: Trinity won’t let me write about Amendment 2. Here’s why I’m against it.

Liam Amick is a senior at Trinity High School, a Catholic school in Kentucky, where vouchers are on the ballot next week in Amendment 2, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would okay vouchers. Trinity has made support of the Amendment mandatory. Amick would like to disagree, and does so in the Courier Journal.

Every day when I drive into school, I’m greeted by yard signs blazing with the message “YES on 2!” To see these put up at Trinity, a school that generally requests little political discussion at school, was quite a shock.

I’m a “private school kid.” I went to St. Francis of Assisi for first through eighth grades, and I am now a senior at Trinity High School. I will always be indebted to those schools for providing me with fantastic educations and experiences in the most formative years of my life. But to say I am disappointed with Trinity’s stance on Amendment 2 — a Kentucky ballot measure that would allow public tax funding to be used for private schools — would be an understatement.

An even bigger disappointment has been Trinity’s and the Archdiocese of Louisville‘s responses to criticism of their position. When both Trinity’s Student Government and Faculty Senate asked if the “YES on 2!” signs could be taken down, they were told that the archdiocese had asked us to put them up and there was absolutely no chance of them being taken down. Also, the administration doesn’t allow our school journalism program to report on any political topics and or criticisms of Trinity and its policies, so I felt that to share my views I had to look outside of the school.

In my opinion, the desire of non-public schools to support Amendment 2 is logical, but closed-minded. What’s important to remember is that, in Kentucky, 65% of non-public schools are found in Louisville, Lexington and the general Northern Kentucky area. Out of 120 counties in Kentucky, 89 have no access to a non-public school, and well-run, accredited non-public schools aren’t going to magically appear in those counties after the passage of Amendment 2. So, the “school choice” amendment would in fact offer students in these areas no “choice” to go to a different school.

Supporters of Amendment 2 often bring up Kentucky’s 2023 $1 billion budget surplus, claiming that that money will be used to provide funding to public schools and said schools will lose no money. However, that surplus money already has a destination. According to House Appropriations and Revenue Chair Jason Petrie, the extra money has “provided the opportunity to invest more than $2.7 billion over the next two years to improve road, rail, river, air, and water infrastructure.” Although Petrie claims they are also making “targeted investments in school facilities,” the bottom line is that significantly fewer tax dollars would go to public schools, leaving no replacement funding in their wake.

Read the full op-ed here. You can view the post at this link : https://networkforpubliceducation.org/blog-content/liam-amick-trinity-wont-let-me-write-about-amendment-2-heres-why-im-against-it/

Categories Education Industry, Elections, Ethics, Religion, Separation of church and state, Students, Vouchers

Brookings Institution: What Project 2025 Means for Education

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2024 //
6

A group of scholars at the Brookings Institution analyzed Project 2025’s proposals for education and their implications.

What struck me as most bizarre about Project 2025 was not its efforts to block-grant all federal funding of schools, nor its emphasis on privatization of K-12 schools. (Block-granting means assigning federal funding to states as a lump sum, no strings attached, no federal oversight).

No, what amazed me most was the split screen between the report’s desire to hand all power over education to states and communities, and the report’s insistence on preserving enough power to punish LGBT students, especially trans students and to impose other far-right mandates, like stamping out critical race theory. You know, either you let the states decide or you don’t. The report wants it both ways.

It’s also astonishing to realize that the insidious goal of the report is eventually abandon federal funding of education. That’s a huge step backward, taking us to 1965, before Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, whose purpose was to raise spending in impoverished communities. I essence, P2025 says that decades of pursuing equitable funding “didn’t work,” so let’s abandon the goal and the spending.

Here is the Brookings analysis:

Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.”

In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze.

Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations:

  • Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
  • Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty
  • Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children
  • Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
  • Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law
  • Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools
  • Promote universal private school choice
  • Privatize the federal student loan portfolio

It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it.

We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations:

1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation

Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress.

Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races, they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals.  

The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “negotiated rulemaking” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process.

The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it usesto allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change, but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatoryfunding is more vulnerable.)

In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles.

2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition

Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either.

Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.)

The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.

[Open the link to see the map.]

Of course, the impact of shifting from federal to state control of Title I would depend on how states choose to handle their newfound decision-making power. Given that several red states are among the lowest spenders on education—and have skimped on programs like Summer EBT and Medicaid expansion—it’s hard to believe that low-income students in red states would benefit from a shift to state control.

What does that mean for the type of support that Project 2025 proposals might get from red-state Republicans in Congress? It’s hard to know. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that the GOP’s push for universal private school voucher programs has encountered some of its fiercest resistance from rural Republicans across several states.

3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally

While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again.

Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone:

  • Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
  • Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination
  • Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus
  • Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers
  • Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt

Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules. (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron, which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.)

Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects.

4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda

If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms.

But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers.

Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”

These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years.

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Childhood, Pre-K, K, Civil Rights, Cruelty, Disruption, Early Childhood Education, Education Industry, Elections, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Equity, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Extremism, Funding, Privatization, Religion, Republicans, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Special Education, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »