Under California law, parents are allowed to create free charter schools in local school districts to allow parents to have a personal impact on their children’s education. In this program, students are allowed to do an independent study which allows parents to homeschool their children instead of normal classroom based learning. Through this program, families receive a state account with funding for school supplies and other school-related expenses. Parents get to choose what curriculum their children follow, while the charter schools monitor attendance records and credits. One main stipulation with this way of learning is that parents cannot use the state’s funding to purchase religious curricula, nor can they purchase non-religious curricula from a religious publisher. The charter schools also do not accept credit from work that is related to religion in any way. This case stems from that stipulation.
In October of 2023, a group of parents sued California school officials under the claim of religious discrimination. The First Liberty Institute, along with King & Spalding LLP are spearheading the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have claimed that the charter schools have restricted their access to funds, rejected a student's credit, and in one case, expelled a family from the charter school. The plaintiffs argue that The U.S. Department of Education has historically taken the stance that schools cannot deny a student credit based on their work coming from a religious viewpoint. In April of 2024, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, but the attorneys are appealing this decision.
The question at hand is: does disqualifying a student from state funded schooling based on the fact that they are using religious materials in their education violate the free exercise clause?
I would argue that this does violate the free exercise clause. Using evidence from Carson v. Makin (2021), a similar case where students were denied financial aid due to them choosing to go to a religious school, we see that the court decided it violated the free exercise clause to deny families “otherwise available scholarship funds at religious schools.” The state was not allowed to make decisions on scholarships to some schools and not other schools based on religion.
In the case of the California charter schools, some students are receiving credit and funding for their education while others are not based on religious learning. For the government to take a neutral stance on the subject, students should all be allowed to learn regardless of whether they want a religious curriculum or not. The government should neither be incentivizing religion, nor incentivizing a child to be non-religious. One issue with this case however, is that it could lead to a slippery slope where all religious schools will try to fight to have tuition subsidized by the government, but in this case, the schools are meant to have families choose their own curriculum, so therefore they should allow religious ones.
Sources:
https://firstliberty.org/cases/california-charter-schools/#simple1
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088
7 comments:
I have some concerns about the constitutional question you pose, "does disqualifying a student from state funded schooling based on the fact that they are using religious materials in their education violate the free exercise clause?". I understand that the state can not fund the purchasing of religious materials or endorse religious education, but was this student using the states money for his/her materials? If it is the case that the student was studying secular and religious topics yet only using state money for the secular courses then I feel the expulsion was unconstitutional. I believe there is a secular legislative purpose to providing children education in hopes of bettering society and preparing them for future. While religious material can not be funded by the state it is not unconstitutional for the student to mix in a religious course with their own money. The state allowing any child to mix in spiritual courses of any kind (on their own dime) this would be neutral amongst all religions and non-religion. It is simply allowing them to exercise without providing help. So I agree with your opinion, but I do wonder more about the particular facts of the defendants case.
I agree with Ned's argument that this does violate the free exercise clause. If students are not able to be educated on religious topics then it would defeat the purpose of being able to be homeschooled. An intended benefit of being able to be homeschooled is the opportunity to study what the parent deems important. If homeschooling was an option for students but the content was controlled the student would just go to school like normal. Even though equipment is being provided by the school, the school should be aware that they are providing equipment and providing the opportunity for the student to be educated on religious topics.
I believe that the use of state funds to buy religious course books should not be allowed by the state. State money should not go towards funding religious materials even if the funds are indirect through the student. If the money for the books were going towards secular topics, I would find the use of state funds as more understandable. However, I do find slight problems with giving families aid for financing a religious education in general even if financing secular course material. It relates similarly to state vouchers for private religious schools, which I believe is unconstitutional as it does seem to further religion.
I believe that students using religious materials should still receive state funds. The Carson v. Makin case shows that it’s unfair to deny funds for religious studies. State funding should be available to all students equally, so families don’t have to choose between their beliefs and their education. When funds are withheld because of religious content, it puts extra pressure on families to change something that is important to them. Allowing religious learning alongside state support helps maintain fairness while protecting the free exercise of religion.
I do not believe that students using religious materials should still use state funds. Because of the indirect benefit to religion, and thus, the advancement of religion over secular values, the government should not be involved in funding such endeavors. This also violates the establishment clause as the government is aiding certain religions over others or over no religion at all. It is important to pay attention to the line between church and state and I believe this crosses it.
I think that disqualifying students from state-funded schooling based on their use of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause. California’s policy restricts families who wish to incorporate religion into their child’s education, effectively disadvantaging them. A truly neutral approach would allow all students equal access to funding, regardless of their curriculum’s religious or secular nature.
If the state gives money to help with education, it shouldn’t treat religious families differently. In Carson v. Makin, the Court asserted that it’s wrong to deny funds just because someone chooses a religious school. The same should apply here. Students using religious materials at home shouldn’t lose credit or funding. I believe that is not neutral, it punishes families for practicing their faith, ultimately going against the Free Exercise Clause.
Post a Comment