On February 9th, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) unanimously rejected a proposal by the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to open a virtual Jewish charter school within the state of Oklahoma. The school was projected to open in the fall of 2026, with 500 students and state funding of $2.6 million, estimated to grow to 1,500 students and funding of $8.3 million by 2030. Oklahoma is home to roughly 9,000 Jews, which is less than 1% of the state population. This small statewide presence has fueled skepticism among some Jewish leaders, who have questioned the need for the charter in the first place.
The application has been advanced by Peter Deutsch, a former congressman from Florida, who opened the first Ben Gamla charter school in Florida in 2007. The school operates as "Hebrew language and Jewish culture-themed", allowing students to be released during the school day for religious education. There are currently six active Ben Gamla charter schools in South Florida. Deutsch supported the Oklahoma application by noting that "The schools have consistently performed and been rated at the top 5 or 10% of public schools, not just charter schools, in the state of Florida", claiming that "The opportunity is probably the best in Oklahoma of any state".
The OSCSB's rejection derives from the legal precedent established by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2024, which held that religious charter schools are unlawful under the state's Constitution. The ruling arose when the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved a proposed virtual charter school by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummon sued the SVCSB, declaring the proposal to be in violation of state laws preventing establishment of religion. The Oklahoma Supreme Court then sided with Drummond, causing the SCSB to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The board argued that the state's rejection of religious, publicly funded charter schools, solely because of their religious status, is exclusionary in nature. On May 22, 2025, the U.S. The Supreme Court issued a 4-4 split decision with one justice recusing, leading to an equally divided court. With this, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's decision was affirmed by the split decision, and the proposal of the virtual Catholic school was rejected.
A week before the unanimous decision, Americans United, the ACLU, the Education Law Center, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation authored a note that urged the SCSB to reject the Ben Gamla application. The letter circulates around the idea that while explicit religious education would occur off-campus during administered breaks, the school would still operate with religious purpose. This is inconsistent with the legal definition of a public charter school, which must be secular and open to all students, regardless of religion. The school would also create religious discrimination in admissions and hiring, which is contrary to law that requires public charter schools to be open to all students and staff. The letter additionally referenced the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond case to support their argument. With this, the Constitution’s Establishment Clause is clearly violated as the state endorses religious education and discriminates against the public.
SCSB Chairman Brian Shellem spoke on the matter following the board’s decision, saying that he welcomes further action from the Legislature and Ben Gamla. He also notably added that he hopes the matter makes its way back to the Supreme Court following the lack of consensus that Drummond provided.
The situation between the SCSB and Ben Gamla poses questions and implications regarding the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. While the proposal was rejected, the operation of Ben Gamla schools in South Florida, as well as the split decision in Drummond clearly display that there are unresolved issues. This poses the question: Can a state operate a religious, public charter school without violating the Establishment Clause? If it refuses, is that a violation of the Free Exercise Clause?
This situation obviously directly relates to Drummond, but also to cases such as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In Espinoza, the state of Montana created a tax-credit scholarship program that aided families in paying for private school tuition. The court struck the program down because the funds were being used at religious schools, leading parents to sue. This brought the issue to the Supreme Court, with the ruling being 5-4 in favor of the parents. The majority argued that once the state had created the public aid program, they could not exclude religious schools as doing so would be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
In my opinion, the proposal of the publicly-funded Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School should remain rejected, as accepting the proposal would be in violation of the Establishment clause. A substantial aspect of this case is weighing the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses to determine which one is being violated. Espinoza is different because the public aid program provides neutral funds that can be used in whatever way the recipients choose to. The state of Montana does not endorse or establish religion by providing aid that can be used for the education of children in religious or secular schools. This situation is different because the school is directly funded by taxpayers. Students are given a designated period to leave campus to engage in explicit religious education, which is Constitutional as established in Zorach v. Clauson. Despite this, the school operates with religious purpose and instruction that while not explicitly taught on-campus, creates an environment of coercion for students that endorses the Jewish faith. Acceptance of the proposal would create long-term implications, as the creation of a publicly-funded Jewish school would mean that the state must accept proposals of all denominations. This would lead to public education being denominational, which clearly violates the Establishment Clause. Overall, the SCSB’s rejection of the Ben Gamla school upholds the Establishment Clause by refusing to endorse the Jewish faith through public funds, which is not exclusive.
11 comments:
I agree that Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School should not receive public funding as this would violate the Establishment Clause. This case reminded me of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township which held that it was constitutional to reimburse families whose children attend parochial schools because it supported the secular goal of getting all children to school safely and these funds did not directly support any religious school. Therefore, in my opinion, because Ben Gamla, a religious school, would be directly receiving the funding this would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I agree with the rejection of the funding for the Jewish Charter school. This would clearly be aiding religion and serving as an establishment. Also, as was mentioned in this article, the school would be forced to discriminate who they hire based on religion. This poses many more problems as those employees are receiving state dollars.
I also agree with the rejection of the public funding for the Jewish Charter School. As much as we may talk about in class how our tax dollars go to various things we do not know, this would be a direct line of money into supporting a religious school. This violates the Establishment Cause. The idea of religious charter school sounds more like a double standard, as charter schools are open to any individual, but then you make it religious and you are automatically discriminating against those who do not practice this religion.
I agree with the rejection of public funds for the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School and with your analysis that this action violates the Establishment Clause. This charter school, based on the facts you laid out, has explicit intentions of being a religious institution rather than a traditional secular institution that would and should receive public funding. Public funds going directly to religious institutions violates the principle of separation of church and state.
I think you make a really strong point about why the SCSB’s decision makes sense under the Establishment Clause. Even though the Free Exercise Clause protects religious freedom, funding a school that’s openly religious feels like the state is picking a side. I like your comparison to Espinoza, the difference is clear because that program let families choose, while Ben Gamla would have been directly tied to taxpayer money. Upholding secular public charter schools ensures fairness.
I agree that the charter school should not get funding. Most importantly, in my opinion, is that the school is being directly funded by the government. This is not neutral towards other religious schools since if the state were to fund one religious school, then they should have to fund any religious school. Further, this a violation of the separation of church and state. The state provides secular public school and if parents do not want to send their children there, then they have the right to pay for a religious private school that is not funded by the government.
I agree with the rejection of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter school, as it is a big violation of the establishment clause. The seperation of church and state can be debated when there is a thin line and the individual, program or etc is walking that line. In this case however we see that the direct funding of a religious institution would be giving favor to a particular religion and by funding its teaching goals the state would also be funding the practices of the religion. This would in turn be a violation of the seperation between church and state that Jefferson and Madison alluded to and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly tried to protect.
I agree with your analysis as likely if allowed would create a "slippery slope". While these decisions are complicated the courts must attempt to "draw a line" as to not restrict religion but also not promote it. In this case public tax payer dollars going directly to the church (with not completely secular goals) is a clear example of state endorsement/establishment and I agree should not be allowed.
I agree with the court's decision to reject the school's funding as the definition of a charter school is literally one that is secular and free to all students. Tax dollars, which is meant to be going to benefits of the general public, would be used to be funded here, which isn't religious neutrality and violated the establishment clause. A Jewish charter school isn't secular nor open to all students, so by that definition, why should it recieve a large amount of public funding?
I agree with the Charter School Board's decision to reject the schools funding as the Jewish school would be practicing non secular activities while receiving public funds. Being funded by tax dollars while practicing a private religion violates the establishment clause and if deemed constitutional by the gov't, would not be neutral.
I agree with the Charter school board's decision. Funneling money directly to a religious school would be like donating money to a religious group itself. The school is not open to all students nor secular, so funding is not permissible.
Post a Comment