Opinion
Education Letter to the Editor

Religious Charter Schools

August 14, 2007 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

To the Editor:

As a charter school operator and a member of the California charter commission, I disagree with Lawrence D. Weinberg and Bruce S. Cooper’s Commentary “What About Religious Charter Schools?” (June 20, 2007). Religious-based charter schools don’t make sense legally or politically for the charter movement.

By law, charter schools are part of the public school system and, therefore, government agencies. By definition, private schools are not. Charter schools are created and overseen by public entities and school districts; private schools are not. Charter schools are entirely publicly funded; public vouchers fund only a part of a religious school.

As a government agency, a charter school must maintain the long-standing division of church and state. Creating religious charter schools—that is, religious public schools—would improperly blur that constitutional line in a government agency, impermissibly entangling the government in determining whether religious instruction is, or appears to be, coerced by the schools.

In fact, it strains credulity to think that a religious-based school would not directly or indirectly encourage religious practice. Why be a religious school otherwise? Individual school policies to the contrary are not reassuring.

Charter schools already must fend off their opponents’ allegations that they are not public schools, and an array of other specious arguments. Creating religious charter schools would only make it harder to retain public support, by muddying the waters over a well-defined constitutional distinction.

Religious schools are fine for parents who want to support them. The courts have also said that it is acceptable for the government to allow parents to use vouchers to direct some public funds to religious private schools, particularly in areas with very low-performing public schools. But it goes too far to ask the government to fully fund and oversee religious public schools. Religious charter schools do not make sense.

Mark Kushner

Chief Executive Officer and Founder

Leadership Public Schools

San Francisco, Calif.

To the Editor:

Only if religious schools met the high standards of inclusion and faculty training required of public schools would they be worthy of receiving taxpayer money through vouchers, tax deductions for tuition, or as charters. This is not going to happen, because to do so would undermine such schools’ stated purpose: providing a religious education.

In addition to not mandating religious training during school hours, they would have to welcome members of faiths whose beliefs were incompatible with those of the schools’ founders without proselytizing, and also allow religious dress as public schools do.

The schools would have to draw from the same pool of certified teachers that public schools rely upon and hire only certified, professional educators. A religious education would then cost more, since private schools often save money by paying their teachers as much as $10,000 a year less than what public school teachers in the same districts receive.

The schools would have to practice open admission, which would mean not only educating students with minor behavioral or learning difficulties, but also serving those with physical or emotional disabilities, as well as providing the technology, special educators, and services they require.

Finally, there would have to be an objective way for religious schools to demonstrate that they were actually providing a quality education; there would have to be a standard of comparison.

If parents wish to give their children a religious education and can afford to pay for it, they have every right to do so. Otherwise, millions of children already receive their faith-based training outside of school hours, where it belongs under the U.S. Constitution: in the home and in religious communities of their parents’ choice.

Until religious schools function with the inclusiveness and accountability required of public schools, they are unworthy of taxpayer money.

Rhonda Browning

Gonzales, La.

Related Tags:
Opinion

A version of this article appeared in the August 15, 2007 edition of Education Week

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Assessment Webinar
Reflections on Evidence-Based Grading Practices: What We Learned for Next Year
Get real insights on evidence-based grading from K-12 leaders.
Content provided by Otus
Classroom Technology K-12 Essentials Forum How AI Use Is Expanding in K-12 Schools
Join this free virtual event to explore how AI technology is—and is not—improving K-12 teaching and learning.
Mathematics Webinar How to Build Students’ Confidence in Math
Learn practical tips to build confident mathematicians in our webinar.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Education Briefly Stated: April 16, 2025
Here's a look at some recent Education Week articles you may have missed.
9 min read
Education Quiz ICYMI: Do You Know What 'High-Quality Curriculum' Really Means?
Test your knowledge on the latest news and trends in education.
1 min read
Image of curricula.
iStock/Getty
Education Quiz ICYMI: Lawsuits Over Trump's Education Policies And More
Test your knowledge on the latest news and trends in education.
1 min read
Image of money symbol, books, gavel, and scale of justice.
DigitalVision Vectors
Education Quiz ICYMI: Trump Moves to Shift Special Ed Oversight And More
Test your knowledge on the latest news and trends in education.
1 min read
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on TikTok in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on TikTok in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington.
Evan Vucci/AP