Secularism or State Funds?

You live in a small, quiet town in Vermont with your spouse and two children. Due to the size of your town, there is not a public school in the area. In response, the school district dispenses funds to families in your town to use towards schools in neighboring towns. As a practicing Catholic, you decide to send your children to a Catholic school. You chose this school because it aligns with your religious values and will provide your children with a strong education. After selecting the school, you are dismayed to discover that the school board denied your request for funds because of the school’s affiliation with a religious organization. If the school is giving you funds for your personal choice, shouldn’t you be allowed to decide to send your children to a religious school? Or, is the school board constitutional in its decision to limit the distribution of funds to secular private and public schools. This is the story of the E.W. v French case: the intersection of religion and education, the rights of parents and children, and the possible religious entanglement of the Vermont government.

In Vermont, the Williams family is challenging the ruling of the government on their ability to put funds toward denominational schools. As explained above, several towns in Vermont do not have public schools because of their small population. As a result, the government in Vermont created the Town Tuition Program, which provides tuition funds to families to put towards a school of their choice for their children. Under this program, the town will give funds to parents to put towards an approved school. However, the funds are only eligible for public and private secular schools. Since the Williams family applied for funds to send their children to Rutland’s Mount St. Joseph Academy, a school run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Vermont, their request was denied. 

Recently, in the United States, there have been several court cases challenging the right to tuition funds for any school. With tensions high and controversies looming, we must question: who has the right to choose a child’s schooling, and is it constitutional for the government to set restrictions on education funds? Specifically, is the Barstow Unified Union School District restricting the Williams family’s free exercise of religion by denying them the ability to put state funds towards a religious school of their choice?

To further our understanding of this case, it is crucial to reference past rulings to better understand precedents in religious cases. In June of 2020, the Supreme Court Ruled on a similar case, Espinoza v Montana. In Montana, a program was established that gave tax credits to those who donated to organizations that provided scholarships for private school tuition. However, because the Montana government did not allow government aid to go to schools with any religious affiliation, they created a rule prohibiting families from using the scholarship money at religious schools. The case was brought before the Supreme Court, who ruled in a 5-4 majority that it was unconstitutional to prohibit the use of funds at religious schools because it “bar[red] religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools” (JDSUPRA, 2020).

In class, we also referenced several similar cases, such as Carson v. Makin. This case involved a program in Maine to help with tuition for schools. However, the program was only available to parents who sent their children to public and private schools, but not religious schools. In E.W. v. French and Carson v. Makin, it is helpful to use the “Lemon test” to determine the constitutionality of these tuition programs. The “Lemon Test” was first used in Lemon v. Kurtzman. In deciding this case, the justices established a three-pronged test to determine the constitutionality of specific cases. The three prongs are: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advantages nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion” (Munoz, 179). Based on the “Lemon Test”, the Vermont Town Tuition Program is not constitutional. Since the government is giving state funds to public and private schools, I do not believe it is neutral to deny parents the choice to send their children to religious schools. Also, if the funds are available for anyone in the town, there would be neutrality between private, public, and religious schools. Finally, it is not constitutional because the funds would only be indirectly benefitting religious schools. As with government loans for colleges and universities, it is the right of the students and parents to decide where to put their funds. It should be the personal choice of the parents to choose where to put their educational funds for their children. As a result, if the parents decided to send their children to religious schools, it would be an indirect benefit, just as it is an indirect benefit when parents decide to send their children to secular private schools. 

With the facts outlined, similar cases compared, and opinions shared, how do you feel about this case? Do you think that it is unconstitutional? Ultimately, should Vermont be allowed, under the constitution, to prohibit parents from putting public education funds towards tuition at religious schools?