Government Jesus

the privatization of charter schools ruins both religious education and public schooling

Goobers, a product by Smuckers that combines peanut butter and grape jelly in the same jar, is one of the best things I've ever eaten. I'm always amazed that people say, "Yuck, that stuff is gross." They can't understand the idea of these two incongruent things in one jar.

After reading Andy Smarick's blog post about the push for religious charter schools in Oklahoma, I discovered a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between religious education and public schooling. What Smarick and others present as innovation represents a dangerous commodification that weakens both institutions. The problem isn't just concerning the separation of church and state—it's about preserving the integrity of religious formation and democratic education.

Consider the historical context: Black communities have long understood the distinction between religious education and public schooling. As W.E.B. Du Bois noted, the Black church played a crucial role in education while simultaneously supporting public schools. These institutions served different but complementary purposes. Religious schools nurtured faith and cultural identity, while public schools—despite their many flaws—were sites of collective struggle for democratic participation.

Oklahoma's attempt to create St. Isidore, a Catholic virtual charter school, exposes three fundamental contradictions:

First, the corruption of religious mission. When religious schools become dependent on state funding and subject to state oversight, they inevitably compromise their spiritual autonomy. The Oklahoma Catholic dioceses claim they can maintain their "evangelizing mission" while operating as state actors. This is both constitutionally impossible and spiritually incoherent. Proper religious education requires the freedom to express faith fully without state entanglement.

Second, privatizing charter schools degrades their public purpose. Public school supporters conceived charter schools as innovative public institutions serving broad community needs. Converting them into religious entities fundamentally undermines their public character. As the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools argues, charter schools are "joint undertakings with the state" designed to serve all students regardless of faith. Religious charter schools would fragment this common purpose into competing sectarian interests.

Third, the exploitation of vulnerable communities. The market logic behind religious charter schools particularly threatens marginalized students. In communities where religious charter schools become dominant, families face coercive choices between educational quality and religious freedom. This disproportionately impacts students of color, low-income families, and religious minorities.

The $2.5 million St. Isidore would receive in state funding in its first year represents more than just money – it represents the commodification of religious formation and public education. This marketization strips both institutions of their essential character:

- Religious schools lose their prophetic voice and spiritual independence

- Public schools lose their role as shared spaces for democratic engagement

- Both become mere service providers in an educational marketplace

Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General Drummond recognizes what charter school privatization advocates miss: Some institutional boundaries must remain clear for religious and public institutions to fulfill their distinct missions. Blurring these lines weakens both.

The path forward requires defending both authentic religious education and genuine public schooling. Religious communities must maintain their educational autonomy through truly independent schools. Meanwhile, charter schools must recommit to their public mission of serving all students through secular, democratic education.

This isn't about limiting choice—it's about preserving the distinct and vital roles that religious and public institutions play in a democratic society. We diminish both when we convert public education into a marketplace and spiritual formation into a state service. The Supreme Court now faces a choice between maintaining this crucial distinction or further eroding the foundations of religious and public education.

The question isn't whether religious organizations should participate in education – they already do, powerfully and independently. The question is whether we'll preserve the integrity of both religious and public education or sacrifice both on the altar of market ideology.