Photo credit: www.educationnext.org
Pluralism Is Good
The inception of modern educational choice in the United States began with Wisconsin’s voucher program in 1990 and Minnesota’s charter school initiative shortly after in 1991. These developments reshaped parental choice in education, yet few anticipated that charter schools would outpace vouchers in popularity over the next twenty years. While vouchers aimed to enhance access to existing schools, especially those with a proven track record, charter schools introduced the concept of creating new educational institutions altogether. Over time, elite consensus began to favor charters as a viable alternative to vouchers, leading to a significant political shift in the parental choice landscape.
This preference for charter schools has had notable implications. Often, the legislation surrounding charter schools was designed to limit voucher programs, forcing religious institutions to confront a dilemma: accepting public funding meant relinquishing their religious identity. Some institutions have chosen this path; for instance, the Archdiocese of New York recently announced the closure of several Catholic schools, entrusting their management to Brilla Public Charter Schools, a non-religious entity. Other religious schools have similarly transitioned into charter schools to access public financing.
However, many institutions have opted to resist this compromise for various reasons. A poignant example is captured in Derrell Bradford’s critique of these changes, where Monsignor Kevin Hanbury articulated that converting Catholic schools into secular charters would compromise their core mission. Consequently, without public funding, many have permanently closed their doors, causing significant disruptions for thousands of underprivileged children who relied on them for education. Urban Catholic schools, in particular, have traditionally excelled in fostering student development and stabilizing communities, a point supported by research indicating that students from these schools generally perform better than their counterparts in public schools. Recent assessments further establish that Catholic schools substantially outperformed both public and charter institutions, highlighting the adverse impact of earlier school closures due to the pandemic.
Some advocates of charter schools contend that permitting religious charters could lead to detrimental outcomes. Concerns have arisen that states might respond to religious charter proposals by halting all charter approvals or even shutting down existing charters. Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, cautioned that current Supreme Court deliberations could threaten this pivotal educational reform.
Such claims often exaggerate the potential fallout surrounding the introduction of religious charter schools. The fundamental issue raises questions about the classification of charter schools: Are they private entities or government institutions? The legal discourse surrounding Oklahoma’s charter schools has primarily revolved around the state action doctrine, which permits private organizations to collaborate with the government without losing their private status. Assertions made by Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond contend that these charter schools are governmental because they emerge from a public chartering process. This stance is contested; a private nonprofit does not automatically assume governmental status simply because it functions alongside state entities or originates from government regulations. Regardless of the classification debate, charter operators in Oklahoma should retain their categorization as private actors, allowing them freedom from regulations imposed on traditional public schools.
Despite this, many charter school supporters insist on maintaining their classification as “public schools,” often conflating this with governmental status. Upon the approval of St. Isidore’s charter application, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools declared that all charter schools must be non-sectarian. This reasoning reflects a logical inconsistency, as prior public schools were entirely government-run and considered state actors. Chartering transforms the educational landscape by introducing private nonprofits into the public education sphere, which should not be misconstrued as a shift towards government control. Charter schools should actively resist any narratives branding them as governmental entities to preserve their innovative potential. A ruling classifying them as government-operated institutions could severely limit their ability to function independently and could have broader implications for other government-funded private service organizations, ranging from healthcare to community development initiatives.
Source
www.educationnext.org