by Lorinda K. F. Newton
Whenever the topic of our children’s education comes up in conversation, my husband offers this response as to why we chose home education: Parents have the duty to educate their children. Therefore,
- Their first choice ought to be home education because only then can parents direct the instruction of their children.
- If that isn’t possible, parents can delegate the education of their children to a private school.
- As a last resort, they may send them to the government school.
He concludes that just as parents are expected to provide food and shelter by their own means before seeking food stamps and public housing, they also ought to oversee their children’s education before using public schools.
In reality, few American families share this view. For over a hundred years, we’ve been conditioned to send our kids to public school. Even when some do acknowledge this parental responsibility, most, due to lack of time or finances, still rely on the state-run schools. For only about 10 percent of children in the US attend private schools, and only around 3 percent are home educated. That leaves 87 percent of the K-12 population in the government schools, for better or for worse.
Expanding School Choice
But this year, the US Supreme Court may change this situation and extend educational choice to more families. On January 22, 2020, the Court heard arguments for Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. It will announce its decision later this year.
In 2015, the Montana state legislature enacted a tax-credit scholarship program. In exchange for a donation to the scholarship fund, private donors would receive a state tax credit of up to $150. This scholarship money was then made available to low-income parents to use for tuition at the school of their choice.
However, the Montana Department of Revenue banned the use of these scholarships at religious schools. The department cited what is commonly known at the state’s Blaine Amendment, which prohibits “direct or indirect” public funding for any “sectarian purpose,” for their reason.
Now the Supreme Court justices must decide whether
“…the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling ‘deepened the long-standing split on whether barring religious options from student-aid programs violates the federal Religion and Equal Protection Clauses.’” (Ballotpedia)
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, not only will the Montana scholarship program be reinstated, the state’s Blaine Amendment will be overturned. And not only in Montana. Thirty-seven states have a version of the Blaine Amendment.
But what is a Blaine Amendment, and how does it affect American schools?
Anti-Catholic Attitude
The original Blaine Amendment was proposed by James G. Blaine, who served as speaker of the House of Representatives from 1869 to 1876. In December 1885, he introduced a constitutional amendment that would prevent public funds from being used at sectarian schools. This bill stated that
“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, not 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 sect or denominations.”
The word sectarian is essential to note. During the late 1800s, many Americans discriminated against Catholics and referred to them as a sect. Inspiration for this amendment stemmed from this anti-Catholic attitude.
For up to that time, American schools had taught from a Protestant worldview, including prayers, hymns, and Bible readings as part of the curriculum. The Catholic population, increasing rapidly due to immigration, however, didn’t want their children trained in Protestant doctrine. So, in the mid-1870s, some Catholic church leaders lobbied some state legislatures to provide money for a separate Catholic education system.
Agreeing with many Americans that Roman Catholicism threatened society, James Blaine wanted to make sure that no state provided funds for Catholics schools. Thus, he proposed his constitutional amendment. It easily passed the House with a 180-7 vote but failed in Senate by four votes.
Supporters of the anti-Catholic amendment refused to give up on the idea, however. They blocked the possibility of government-funded Catholic schools in two ways. First, some worked to pass state versions of the Blaine Amendment. Second, Congress passed the Enabling Act of 1889, which granted statehood to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington, which required each of these states to keep their public schools “free from sectarian control” (Section 4, fourth provision).
A Shift in Interpretation
Initially, these Blaine Amendments may seem to ensure religious neutrality in the schools. But as I noted above, since the founding of the United States, the public schools have included a form nondenominational Protestantism in their instruction. School-led prayer and Bible reading were legal until the early 1960s when two Supreme Court rulings outlawed them. The Blaine amendments weren’t about removing religion from public schools but keeping non-Protestant doctrines out of the schools.
But that view changed by the mid-twentieth century. When families began to advocate for school vouchers, anti-religion activists used the Blaine Amendments to prevent families from using these vouchers at religious schools. Such actions often trapped students in failing public schools. (For a list of court cases regarding state Blaine Amendments, see “Blaine Info Central: Dismantling Discriminatory Blaine Amendments.”)
Although Blaine Amendment supporters believe they are preventing the establishment of religion, others point out that those amendments violate the First Amendment’s free exercise and establishment clauses. The Cato Institute explains how that is the case.
Instead, the government must remain neutral toward religion and not disfavor religious people or organizations. In this sense, the Establishment Clause is a shield protecting the people from state religion, not a sword enabling government to discriminate against religious faith.
Overturning the Blaine Amendments
If the US Supreme Court overturns the Blaine Amendments, school-choice programs may allow parents to use these funds at religious schools. State funds given to religious schools does not establish a religion. The Framers of the Constitution rejected the idea of a state church, not faith in schools. On the contrary, many Founders declared that religious training was necessary to preserve the republic.
Furthermore, how could a voucher program that allows parents to choose from Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish schools be viewed as an establishment of religion? The program actually supports the diversification of beliefs.
Concerning the Espinoza case, the Cato Institute even suggested that providing such school choice options would benefit the nation.
[S]chool‐choice programs help prevent the forced ideological conformity that is inevitable in public schools. Tax‐credit programs like Montana’s allow parents to select schools that share their values, reducing the need to impose those values on others. In so doing, they improve our nation’s social and political cohesion and reduce conflict.
Perhaps in the future, school vouchers will be available to home educators as well.
Watch the news for the release of the Supreme Court decision on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. May this decision expand educational freedom to all students.
Lorinda K. F. Newton began homeschooling her children in 2004, and her family joined Academy Northwest in 2014. Her family lives on beautiful Whidbey Island north of Seattle, Washington. She writes about faith, culture, and governing from a biblical worldview at Lorinda’s Ponderings and Lorinda’s Ponderings on Facebook. ©2020 by Lorinda K. F. Newton. All rights reserved.
