The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted unanimously against an application Monday for a virtual Jewish charter school, citing the state supreme court’s 2024 ruling that public funding for a religious school would violate state law. As expected, some board members voiced support for Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation.

“I think our hands are tied,” said Board Member Damon Gardenhire, who said he didn’t see much difference between Ben Gamla’s application and a now-closed Native American charter school that featured a “spiritual component.” 

In a statement responding to the vote, Brett Farley, a member of the proposed school’s board, said organizers plan to challenge the decision in federal court. “Oklahoma families should have the freedom to choose schools that best meet their children’s needs — without losing strong options simply because they are faith-based,” he said.

The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board is expected to deny an application for a Jewish charter school Monday, but will likely welcome organizers of the school to take them to court.

Peter Deutsch, founder of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, and a former Democratic congressman, made his pitch for the school in January, saying that he aims to bring “a rigorous, values-driven education” to Jewish parents in Oklahoma.

“I anticipate that our board would like to grant them the application,” Brian Shellem, the board chair, told The 74. “But we can’t snub our nose at the court either.”

He means the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled against the nation’s first Catholic charter school in 2024. That decision still stands after the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked over that case last year. The charter board’s likely denial of Ben Gamla’s application is expected to spark another lawsuit, pitting against those who say it would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on establishing a religion. With a case over a proposed Christian charter in Tennessee already in federal court and another religious school in Colorado founded to test the same legal question, there’s little doubt that the nation’s highest court will eventually settle the debate.

“It is hard for me to imagine the court doesn’t take the issue again when it comes to it,” said Derek Black, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina. But after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself in the case over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, resulting in the 4-4 tie, the justices likely in favor of religious charters, he said, “would want a case that was very strong.”

‘Pray and hear Scripture’

So far, the only case to watch is in Tennessee. Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville, a nonprofit that wants to open a K-8 Christian charter school, sued the Knox County school board because the district wouldn’t accept its letter of intent to apply. State law prohibits charter schools from being religious. 

“Students will begin to develop biblical literacy in kindergarten and begin taking catechism lessons by third grade,” according to Wilberforce Academy’s request for a quick ruling in the case. “And they will pray and hear Scripture together in a school assembly every morning.”

As St. Isidore did before them, Wilberforce argues that the nonprofit is a “private actor” and that approving its charter application would not turn it into a government entity.

The Knox County board told the court that it will “most likely” not take a position on the legality of Wilberforce’s argument. On Thursday, the board rejected asking state education Commissioner Lizzette Reynolds to consider granting Wilberforce Academy a waiver so they can open the Christian school.

The Knox board, however, also said the issue of religious charter schools “deserves a thorough examination by the federal courts.” 

Judge Charles Atchley Jr, for the Eastern District of Tennessee, thinks so, too. Last week, he allowed a group of Knox County parents and religious leaders, who oppose Wilberforce’s application, . 

The case, he wrote, has the “potential to reshape First Amendment jurisprudence in the educational context” and it wouldn’t serve the court or parties involved to not have “vigorous advocacy on both sides.”

Amanda Collins, a retired Knox County school psychologist, is among those who have signed up to fight against Wilberforce Academy. She has two children still in the district and one who graduated in 2024. She grew concerned about Wilberforce Academy when she learned the organization didn’t have a history of operating charter schools in the state and feels its attorneys are using the district to “merely force an issue up the ladder to the Supreme Court.”

“In Tennessee, we have plenty of things that are underfunded,” she said. “We don’t need to be wasting our local Knox County taxpayer money on somebody’s agenda that is not intended to promote the education safety and wellness of our public school students.” 

‘The clear constitutional boundary’

Another school that could spark a lawsuit over public funds for religious schools is Colorado’s , which advertises that it offers students a “Christian foundation.” 

The school operates “pretty much just like a charter school” said Ken Witt, executive director of Education reEnvisioned, the board of cooperative educational services, or BOCES, that contracted with the school. 

As , emails between the attorney for the Pueblo County district, which allowed the school to open within its boundaries, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm, suggest the school was intentionally founded to test the legal argument over whether public schools can practice religion. 

After threatening to withhold state funds because of the school’s religious mission, the Colorado Department of Education funded Riverstone’s 31 students. But the state is also conducting a , which could take another year, before deciding whether it can legally provide money to the school. In the meantime, Riverstone had to close its building last week because of health and safety violations. It’s unclear whether students are learning remotely or in another facility in the meantime.

For now, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat running for governor, hasn’t issued an opinion on Riverstone, but his views on St. Isidore, the Oklahoma school, were clear. Last year, he in opposing state funding for the school.

In , he urged the Supreme Court “to preserve the clear constitutional boundary that protects both religious liberty and the integrity of our public education system.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who is also running for governor, made a similar argument about St. Isidore before both the Oklahoma and U.S. supreme courts. 

But that’s where both he and Weiser split with the Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. In his , Skrmetti states that categorically excluding faith-based schools from public charter programs violates parents’ rights to freely exercise their religion.

To Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the conservative Manhattan Institute, it’s a matter of equity. Higher-income families can move into wealthier neighborhoods or pay private school tuition, he wrote in a on the Wilberforce case. The state, he added, already funds religious schools through education savings accounts. 

“But families who rely on charter schools are told that their options must be secular,” he wrote. 

Black, with the University of South Carolina, said the issue comes down to who authorized the school to begin with. In both Oklahoma and Tennessee, either local or state boards approve charter applications.

“That explicit state involvement, to me, makes it clear that state action is involved,” he said, “and thus the Establishment Clause applies.”

They were right.

In Tennessee, the nonprofit Wilberforce Academy is suing the Knox County Schools in federal court because the district refuses to allow a Christian charter school. Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is on the school’s side. He issued last month that the state’s ban on religious charter schools likely violates the First Amendment. 

“Tennessee’s public charter schools are not government entities for constitutional purposes and may assert free exercise rights,” he wrote to Rep. Michele Carringer, the Knoxville Republican who requested the opinion. 

The legal challenge in Tennessee comes as a Florida-based charter school network prepares to submit an application to the Oklahoma Charter School Board for a Jewish virtual charter high school. Peter Deutsch, the former Democratic congressman who founded the Ben Gamla charter schools, began working on the idea long before the case over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School even went to court. The 4-4 tie in May means that an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision blocking the school from receiving state funds still stands. 

“The prior decision shows that there’s an open question here that needs to be resolved,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm representing the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. “We hope the court will get it right this time. We hope the federal courts get it right without having to go to the Supreme Court.”

Idaho also confronted the issue earlier this year. The state’s first charter, Brabeion Academy, initially the school as Christian. But it in August as a nonreligious school and will open as such next fall. 

Deutsch, Skrmetti and other supporters of faith-based charter schools base their argument on three earlier Supreme Court rulings allowing public funds to support sectarian schools. They say that excluding religious organizations from operating faith-based charter schools is discrimination and violates the Constitution. But leaders of the charter sector and public school advocates argue that classifying charter schools as private would threaten funding and civil rights protections for 3.7 million students nationwide.

“Unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a future case and rules otherwise, we advise all charter school associations and public charter schools to adhere to the letter and spirit of the law in their respective states,” Starlee Coleman, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement.

‘Not on our watch’

When the Supreme Court considered St. Isidore, Deutsch, was prepared to advocate for Jewish congregations to open schools that not only teach their language, but also their faith. He called the case “a historic opportunity” to bring Jewish education to thousands of children.

To Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, the debate is settled, for now. In November, he said his office would “oppose any attempts to undermine the rule of law.” 

Americans United, which advocates for maintaining church-state separation, has also issued a warning over the new school. The organization represented parents and advocates in a separate case over the school. 

“Religious extremists once again are trying to undermine our country’s promise of church-state separation by forcing Oklahoma taxpayers to fund a religious public school. Not on our watch,” Rachel Laser, president and CEO, said in a press release.

The legal fight over religious charter schools began in 2023, when the Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 to approve a charter for St. Isidore, setting off a closely watched case that spanned two years. At the time, the Jewish Federation of Greater Oklahoma City, a nonreligious group, called the charter board’s decision unconstitutional. Rachel Johnson, the group’s executive director, didn’t return calls or emails requesting a comment on Ben Gamla’s proposal.

None of the members who originally voted on St. Isidore serves on the state’s new Oklahoma Charter School Board. But for one person involved with Ben Gamla’s application, this is familiar territory. Brett Farley is on the proposed school’s board, according to a letter of intent the foundation submitted to the charter board in November.

Farley once held a top position with the and is also executive director of the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, which focuses on public policy issues involving the church. While preparing the St. Isidore application, with Notre Dame law Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett, whose scholarly work formed the basis of the legal argument for the school.

�Ҳ����Ա�ٳ�’s is that nonprofits running charter schools are like private contractors, and as with other publicly funded programs, can’t be excluded just because they are religious. She’s also close friends with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who recused herself from the St. Isidore case. Experts speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberals on the court, resulting in the 4-4 tie.

‘Passion for religious freedom’

The virtual school, the intent letter says, would initially enroll about 40 students, focusing on “college readiness, while developing deep Jewish knowledge, faith and values within a supportive learning community.”

But some are surprised Deutsch isn’t making his bid for a Jewish charter school in Florida, where his existing, non-religious charter schools have thrived.

“I think Florida could be a good option given the new attorney general’s passion for ,” said Daniel Aqua, the director of special projects at Teach Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for Jewish education

The demand for a Jewish charter school would be much higher in Florida, which has Jewish population of nearly 762,000, compared with about 9,000 in Oklahoma. 

Charter founders in Florida submit their applications to local school districts first. The state recently added as authorizers, but Oklahoma, where organizers directly with the state charter board, offers a more streamlined process. 

‘Public Christian school’

But efforts to create publicly-funded religious schools are not limited to the charter sector. A new school in Colorado, Riverstone Academy, calls itself the state’s “first public Christian school.” Now serving 30 students in Pueblo, south of Colorado Springs, Riverstone is what is sometimes referred to as a “contract” school because districts sign agreements with private organizations to provide education services. In this case, Education reEnvisioned, one of the state’s 21 boards of cooperative educational services, or BOCES, authorized the school. 

In October, the Colorado Department of Education warned Ken Witt, the BOCES’ executive director, that the school’s per-student funding is at risk because it is “not operating in a nonsectarian nature.” The letter also went to District 49, near Colorado Springs, one of Education reEnvisioned’s member districts. 

In a response, Witt wrote that he was “alarmed at the threat” that the school might not receive funding. “We did not and legally cannot discriminate against this school on account of its religious affiliation,” he wrote. Examining Riverstone’s curriculum to determine if the school is truly sectarian, he said, would be “unconstitutionally entangling and discriminatory against different forms of religion.”

Witt told The 74 that funding usually doesn’t flow from the state to a new school until January, so it’s too soon to know whether officials will withhold funds.

‘Keep coming back’ 

“You’re going to see those within the charter sector and outside of it basically taking the same approach” — arguing that private groups delivering religious instruction can’t be denied public funds, said Preston Green, an education professor at the University of Connecticut. 

To Green, Riverstone’s identity as a “contract” school calls to mind a 1982 case, one that Garnett and other proponents of religious charter schools often highlight when they say that charters are not “state actors.” In , the Supreme Court said a Massachusetts private school that received public funds for educating teens with behavior problems did not act under the “color of state law” when it fired six employees. 

The question, experts say, is not if, but when the Supreme Court will eventually see another case about religious public schools Justice Barrett won’t have the same reason to recuse herself, Green said, and he’s not convinced that Roberts would side with the liberals a second time.

The advocates, he said, “keep coming back at this because they think that they’ll get the votes.”

“It’s not my kids that I worry about,” she said. “This is their opportunity to be a light. Their mission field is the public school.”

For many other Ohio parents, that’s a problem. 

Since he was 8, Cherie Khumprakob’s son, now 11, has been receiving written invitations from classmates to join them at LifeWise. She found one in his backpack.

“He hates getting these notes from his friends and having to tell them ‘No’ repeatedly,” said Khumprakob, who lives in the Columbus area. “Training kids to pressure their friends into religious activities while at public school, during school hours, crosses a line.”

The opposing views illustrate the tension in Ohio and other states where LifeWise is rapidly expanding. The organization expects to serve close to 100,000 kids in 34 states this school year. It has 1,600 employees and runs its own fleet of eye-catching red buses. 

Founded in 2018, LifeWise is the most visible group behind a movement to spread off-campus religious instruction during the school day. Since 2024, the nonprofit has successfully lobbied for legislation in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas mandating that districts allow students to attend LifeWise or similar programs. Some say the requirements violate the separation of church and state. 

“That’s a big shift,” said Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “This whole mandatory aspect is historically something different.” 

In a moment when Republicans are fighting to hang the 10 Commandments on classroom walls and squeeze biblical passages into reading lessons, LifeWise has taken these programs in a more evangelical direction. The organization faces pushback from parents and district staff who think Bible study should be relegated to afterschool hours. LifeWise programs that reward students with items like candy and encourage kids to recruit their friends have proven particularly divisive. 

But those are the strategies LifeWise recommends as a way to increase participation. “Send students back to school with ‘Invite a Friend’ flyers,” urges a on “boosting enrollment.” A says treats are “fun incentives” that are meant to foster a “positive and engaging learning environment.”

“Most students who enjoy a sport, activity or program will talk about it with their friends and encourage them to give it a try as well,” said LifeWise spokeswoman Christine Czernejewski. “Lifewise is no different.”

The 74 found examples of financial transactions between districts and LifeWise that could create the appearance of promoting the program. Especially in Ohio, LifeWise often enjoys strong support from school officials; one superintendent warned staff to avoid such activity while the district was “under the radar.” 

Supporters argue that LifeWise and similar classes respect the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because they require parent permission, don’t meet on school grounds and aren’t supposed to rely on school resources for support.

Some districts are putting “tacks on the road so the big red bus loses air in the tires” just because the program teaches the Bible, said Jeremy Dys, senior counsel with First Liberty Institute, a law firm specializing in religious freedom cases.

The 46,000-student Columbus, Ohio, district from sending kids back to school with any “materials, snacks, clothing, candies, trinkets or other items.” Then the legislature amended the law to say districts can’t prevent organizations from distributing educational materials, but have some discretion over limiting non-educational items like treats. For now, Dys, who represents LifeWise, is waiting to see whether the new restrictions interfere with the program. 

“There’s just a lot of animosity and hostility towards religion,” he said. But recent Supreme Court decisions, like one siding with a football coach who held mid-field prayers and another allowing parents to opt their children out of hearing LGBTQ-themed story books, have expanded religious influence at school. “The courts … have basically been telling school districts, ‘Cool it.’ ”

In total, 16 states require districts to allow students to participate in religious studies during school hours, but a few, like Pennsylvania and New York, have had such laws on the books for years. Some states aren’t ready to take that leap. Legislation requiring districts to release students stalled this year in , and . 

At an education subcommittee hearing in February, Georgia state Rep. David Clark, a Republican running for lieutenant governor, said the programs could solve one of the most pressing issues facing public schools — enrollment loss.

“We have thousands of students leaving public schools. It could be private school; it could be home school,” he said. “I think this … protects our public schools, because it allows parents, [if] they want the religious studies, they can sign their kid up.” 

Clark alluded to data suggesting that attendance increases and behavior improves in schools with LifeWise programs. The findings, from a sponsored by , are frequently cited by LifeWise founder Joel Penton and officials who to school boards across the country. 

But some researchers say the report’s conclusions overstate the program’s benefits. Charles Riedesel, a computer scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, called the work “shoddy.” For one, it included the COVID year, a time when states changed how they tracked attendance because so many students were learning remotely.

‘Blows my mind’

Even though the legislation failed in Georgia, LifeWise still has programs in about six districts statewide, and church leaders are .

On a sunny Friday morning in October roughly an hour outside Atlanta, about 20 Cartersville Elementary fifth graders piled onto a LifeWise bus for a short drive to a local church. Ebby McCoy said she was missing a computer class, but likes how the LifeWise lessons “go a bit deeper” into the Bible than what she learns in church.

Former elementary school teacher Danielle Ruff energetically led the kids through a fast-paced lesson on the 10 plagues that the Bible says God inflicted on Egypt for keeping the Jews enslaved. As she spoke, students connected puzzle pieces linking the disasters in order — water turning to blood, frogs infesting homes and gnats “biting them like crazy,” Ruff said. 

“The next set of plagues only happen to the Egyptians. They don’t happen to the Israelites,” she said. “It blows my mind every time.”

Jason Morrow, a LifeWise board member, was among several volunteers on hand to help kids locate Bible verses. He called the program a “touchpoint during the week” that teaches his daughter, one of the fifth graders, that faith is “not just a Sunday weekend thing.” 

But Clay Willis, who works at the church hosting the program, said LifeWise leaders try to respect the school’s boundaries. For one, they don’t hand out candy. 

“If we sugar them up, that’s not the best way to serve the teachers,” he said. 

‘It’s insulting’

Supporters of LifeWise and similar programs point to a 1952 Supreme Court decision, , that legalized the practice. But the fact that these programs pull kids out of school during the day offers critics their leading argument. During a meeting last fall, Amber Skinner, a board member in the Worthington, Ohio, district, near Columbus, said checking students in and out of school for their LifeWise session is disruptive and eats up staff time. 

“Teachers who are funded with taxpayer dollars” spend time providing a lot of “hands-on assistance” to elementary students who need help signing themselves out, she said. 

The classes, usually held once or twice a week, often coincide with non-core offerings like art and music. Some educators think students are losing out on important material. 

Alan Limke, a retired STEM teacher from the Milton Union district, outside Dayton, kept a list of the lessons that students missed every Tuesday when they left for LifeWise. They included simple circuits, building and launching foam rockets and 3-D modeling. Leading up to the 2024 solar eclipse, when Milton was in the path of totality, he planned a month of activities, including a visit from a mobile planetarium. 

“It’s insulting,” said Limke, who grew up Catholic, but now considers himself an atheist. “I work very hard to come up with lessons that are rigorous and fun and important.”

While LifeWise requires parent permission, specific procedures vary by district, according to Czernejewski, the organization’s spokeswoman. In Ayersville, Ohio, the district Geren’s children attend, the initial permission form remains in effect year to year unless a parent requests a withdrawal. That seems wrong to Nick Sullivan, whose oldest daughter wanted to stop attending after fifth grade. 

“You’ve got to send in a paper stating that you do not want your kid to attend LifeWise or they’re going to automatically enroll them,” Sullivan said. He thinks schools should require the permission slips annually, just like other paperwork. 

Sullivan withheld his daughter’s name to protect her privacy. Now an eighth grader, she told The 74 she found the LifeWise lessons repetitive and said the instructors “would give us a full bag of candy” for reciting Bible verses. 

“I was supposed to be in study hall and they kept on sending me whether I liked it or not,” she said.

‘Crossing the line’

Experiences like those contribute to the growing opposition to LifeWise. The , formed in 2023, keeps a lookout for incidents where they think school officials inappropriately promote the program or allow LifeWise too much access. They’ve found school officials who tout LifeWise in newsletters or post photos on social media with the group’s leaders. Other examples they’ve gathered since 2023 include:

• Continental Elementary in northwest Ohio shared a video of a LifeWise representative on its Facebook page in 2022. The woman displayed baked goods students could choose from if they attended a LifeWise fundraiser. “We have yummy brownies, cookies with M&M’s,” she said. “It’s just so beautiful.” The district did not respond to questions about the video. 

• The Culver district in Indiana, west of Fort Wayne, held a LifeWise-related assembly during school hours last year that caught the attention of attorneys at the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The organization, which advocates for church-state separation, reminded Superintendent Karen Shuman of the district’s policy stating that “no solicitation for attendance at religious instruction shall be permitted on [district] premises.”
  
  In an email to The 74, Shuman said the district is “not conducting Lifewise programs” and that she had “no idea” what the assembly was about. 

• The Supreme Court said religious instruction during the school day should be held off school grounds. The Elmwood Local Schools, south of Toledo, rents space to LifeWise near a school. Superintendent Tony Borton said the lease “has not been an issue in our community.” But last year, he warned against mentioning LifeWise during high school announcements after someone complained, according to an email the Secular Education Association obtained through a public records request. “We are crossing the line with these type things,” Borton wrote. “I am trying to reign in [sic], with the hope we can do more later when we are not under the radar.”

A 74 analysis of data from GovSpend, a company that tracks government purchases, turned up a few additional examples of expenditures that could raise questions. In 2022, Ohio’s Franklin Monroe school district paid , a basketball spinning performer, $800 for a “LifeWise assembly.” A LifeWise representative, initiated the event, according to district emails. The district did not respond to questions about it. 

Another Ohio district, River View, cut a check for $2,000 to LifeWise earlier this year. The funds came from community members donating to the organization, but were improperly routed through the district, said district Treasurer Kara Kimes.

“I’d like to get these funds cleaned up ASAP as donations that are directly for Lifewise shouldn’t be flowing through the district,” she wrote to another staff member in an email The 74 obtained through a public records request.

Czernejewski, the LifeWise spokeswoman, said the organization does not advise local school districts, but that its “role is to operate in compliance with applicable laws.” She added that she was unaware of school officials promoting the program, noting that LifeWise can submit announcements to district newsletters, just like other community organizations.

‘Develop good relationships’

Off-site religious studies during the school day date back to the early 1900s when the offered “seminary” classes to students in Granite, Utah. 

Around the same time, a Gary, Indiana, an off-site religious studies program, and the concept began to grow across the country.

One of the longest-running examples is , based in South Carolina, the first state to allow districts to award elective credit for such programs. Like the lawmaker in Georgia, Executive Director Ken Breivik said the classes allow parents who can’t afford private school “to get some sort of religious experience.” But he thinks forcing districts to release students can spark a “visceral reaction” from school leaders and prefers not to talk much about LifeWise.

“We are just a different organization. We have never done a school board presentation,” he said. He will ask districts to allow a small pilot program before spreading to multiple schools. “We work really hard to develop good relationships with the schools we serve.”

In January, Penton, LifeWise’s founder, joined a to discuss an unlikely competitor in , outside Columbus: Hellion Academy for Independent Learning, or HAIL. The Satanic Temple sponsors the program as an alternative to Christian groups meeting during the school day. The organizers’ intent, Penton said, is “to rattle people” and get districts to stop releasing students for any religious instruction.

HAIL, which focuses on secular humanism rather than Satan worship, began as parent Susannah Plumb’s response to her kids’ classmates leaving school for , a Pennsylvania program.

“It’s not in-your-face proselytization, but little kids don’t understand. They see Johnny get on the bus once a week … and go on a field trip,” Plumb said. “My kids felt left behind.”

HAIL meets at a nearby library, where the kids conduct science experiments, launch community service projects and paint “kindness stones” to place in a local park at the end of the year. But she said the program wouldn’t exist if Joy El, LifeWise and others didn’t.

“I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also believe in plurality,” she said. “When there’s one, there needs to be another.”

Time and again, I have scoffed at such accusations, pointing out how public school choice policy is wildly different than private school choice policy. The two policies should never be conflated when discussing the merits of education reform policies with lawmakers, though many lazily place both in the same basket. It was easy for me to end that feckless argument by reminding lawmakers I was there to discuss public education reform policies only, dismissing any melding of public and private school choice policies. 

But with the U.S. Supreme Court taking up a in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court has already invalidated the approval of an application by the Catholic Church to open a religious based virtual charter school, I now find myself concerned we have crossed the Rubicon, forever merging public and private school policy while dismantling the foundational belief in the separation of church and state. A hearing is set for April 30.

The proposed charter school, which would be managed by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, proclaims in its application that it would carry out “the evangelizing mission of the [Catholic] Church” by fully embracing its religious teachings and incorporating those teachings “into every aspect of the School.” The school also acknowledged that it would discriminate in admissions, student discipline, and employment, as necessary to satisfy the Catholic Church’s religious doctrine, and that it would not accommodate a student’s disability if doing so would violate the school’s Catholic beliefs.

If one religious organization is allowed to operate a charter school under the umbrella of public funding, other groups will seek similar privileges, creating a patchwork of public schools, each with its own set of religious doctrines, prioritizing their religious mission over the educational needs of all students. 

The profound implications for the separation of church and state, public education, and the future of religious influence in the public sphere is in the balance. If the Court rules in favor of this school, it will not only shift the boundaries of constitutional law but also set a dangerous precedent that undermines the secular nature of our public education system.

Beyond the immediate risks of religious instruction and outright discrimination within a publicly funded space, the ramifications for the separation of church and state could be catastrophic. The Supreme Court has historically been tasked with interpreting the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which serves as a safeguard against government interference in religious practices and vice versa. By permitting religiously affiliated institutions to receive state funding, this decision could pave the way for religious schools—ranging from the aforementioned Catholic virtual school to the Church of Satan and every religious belief in between. 

This would lead to disastrous consequences where states increasingly entangle themselves with religion, creating a de facto state-sponsored religious system, serving as gatekeepers of what religions are worthy of overseeing public schools and the children who attend them.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court must consider not only the legal questions of the case but also the broader social and political context. Allowing a religiously affiliated charter school to operate within the public education system would set a precedent that we are likely to regret. It is crucial that the Court uphold this principle and prevent the Catholic Virtual Charter School in Oklahoma from becoming the gateway drug I was warned about—before it opens the door to a much more divided and religiously entrenched education system.

This is not a matter of denying the right to religious expression; it’s about ensuring that the public education system remains a neutral space for all students, regardless of their faith or belief. Let’s not forget: The preservation of the separation between church and state is vital to the integrity of our democracy.

But the biggest education story of the week — one that could change public schools forever — broke late Friday afternoon at a building two miles away. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, backed by the conservative supermajority Trump secured in his first term, agreed to hear an over whether the law permits public dollars to flow to an explicitly religious charter school. A decision in favor of the first-of-its kind Catholic school could further entangle the government and religion, dramatically altering the historic balance between church and state. 

“The stakes really couldn’t be higher,” said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina. While there are Catholic schools that have converted into , St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s “ultimate goal,” according to its , is “eternal salvation.”

“The issue,” Black said, “is whether a religious entity can operate a charter school that teaches religion as truth.” 

Trump supports and has vowed to bring back to public schools. But he’s just the most recognizable face of a larger movement that has been building toward this moment — one that includes governors and state lawmakers, right-leaning think tanks and . Those donors have not only to seat conservative justices, but also helped fund the years of that ultimately landed the school’s application before the high court. 

the courts have long misapplied Thomas Jefferson’s famous words about “a wall of separation between church and state.” Dismissed by most constitutional experts, this view holds that Jefferson’s aim was to keep the federal government from interfering with religious freedom — not to protect the government from the church.

The debate over the school will culminate in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in late April. 

Governors in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, who advocate for weaving the Bible into classroom instruction, have long awaited such a case. “Denying St. Isidore a charter solely because they’re religious is flat-out unconstitutional,” Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt . “This will be one of the most significant decisions of our lifetime.”

But his state’s GOP attorney general disagrees. Gentner Drummond’s office will argue that both state and federal laws clearly require charter schools to be non-sectarian. That view was summed up by American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who  reversing the Oklahoma court’s decision “would drive a dagger into the very idea of public education and strike at the heart of our nation’s democratic foundations.” 

One justice who won’t be involved in the decision is Trump’s most recent Supreme Court appointee. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from deliberating over whether to hear the case. While the court offered no explanation, Barrett is a longtime friend of Nicole Garnett, the Notre Dame University law professor who advised the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa on the charter application. Garnett, who had no comment on Barrett’s recusal, also sits on the board of the , a conservative and libertarian legal organization that has influenced Trump and previous Republican presidents on . 

But attorneys for the school may not need Barrett’s vote. Four of the other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — have all voiced support for greater religious freedom. Over a decade ago, Thomas wrote suggesting states could establish their own Christian denominations. More recently, in , Gorsuch referred to the “so-called” separation of church and state in a case over whether Boston should fly a Christian flag outside City Hall.

While Chief Justice John Roberts takes a more to court precedents, he has sided with the conservative majority in all of its most recent church-state cases. Two of them, and , focused on choice programs at religious schools. 

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the state’s charter school board, to conclude that charter schools are inherently private organizations — not “state actors.” By keeping St. Isadore closed, the Alliance argues, Oklahoma is discriminating against religion and denying families more options. 

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” Jim Campbell, the Alliance’s chief legal counsel, said in a statement.

In a brief in support of the charter school, eight GOP-led states said that prohibiting the funding of religious charter schools would compromise their ability to award grants or contracts to other sectarian organizations, like orphanages and groups providing scholarships. 

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools dismissed that fear and said a charter is not “merely a grant program.”

“The charter school is a state-created public school under Oklahoma law, and its actions are state actions,” the organization wrote in its brief. 

Black agreed, saying that the school’s argument “has no grounding in facts or law.”

The court’s decision to take the case left the law professor with an “enormous pit” in his stomach. Black worries the justices don’t fully understand the complexities of public education funding, particularly the differences between charters, vouchers and education savings accounts.

“That leads to either honest errors, misunderstandings or the ability of other people to lead you astray,” he said.

Experts say it’s hard to ignore the strides evangelical Republicans have made at elevating the importance of Christianity in the classroom.

Red states aren’t just passing voucher programs that allow parents to pay tuition at faith-based schools; they’re also incorporating Bible lessons into the curriculum. If the court rules in favor of the school, Preston Green, a University of Connecticut education and law professor, predicts religious organizations would suddenly “clamour” to open faith-based charters. 

“We’re on the verge of a new system where religious organizations are going to be among the players” running schools, he said. “How do states deal with that reality?”

In addition to allowing public education funds to support a specific faith, a decision in favor of religious charters could also have a devastating financial impact on traditional districts fighting to prevent enrollment loss, Black said. Oklahoma already offers a tax credit scholarship program for school choice, but it doesn’t always cover the full tuition at a private school. Families who want their child to have a Christian education might be more likely to flock to a religious charter school where the cost is fully covered, he explained. 

Robert Franklin, a former member of the state’s charter board, is already thinking about those ramifications. Like public school advocates in other red states, he’s concerned that expanding private school choice will hit rural schools the hardest and leave less funding for traditional schools.

“Oklahoma is a deeply red state,” he said. “I don’t think we have an appetite for raising taxes around here to support schools.” 

Franklin has a unique vantage point on the constitutional dispute that began over two years ago. He voted against St. Isidore’s contract in 2023 and says he felt “vindicated” last year when the state’s high court struck it down. But he’s less confident the U.S. Supreme Court will rule the same way.

“It’s a tumultuous moment,” he said. “There are a lot of forces pulling the other direction.”

The vote was eight to seven, with one member recently appointed by Republican to fill a vacant seat breaking the tie. 

Those who decided to put the program on a list of approved curricula said they don’t think the lessons push Christianity.

“There’s a line between indoctrination or evangelism and education,” said Will Hickman, a Republican board member from Houston. “In my view, these stories are on the education side.”

But Democrat Staci Childs, who also represents the Houston area, pointed to Louisiana, where a a state law requiring public school classrooms to display the 10 Commandments, as a sign of the potential legal battles ahead.

That ruling is “closely aligned to what will happen if some kindergarten or first grade student’s parents were upset about what they were learning in class,” she said. 

The vote came after a day of public comments over the proper role of the Bible in curriculum at a time when evangelical Christians are gaining political strength. also see the incoming Trump administration as a chance to further advance their faith in the realms of education and public policy. Supporters of the state-developed curriculum, first unveiled in May, say it’s culturally relevant and presents Jesus and other biblical figures in their historical context. As an added incentive, the state will pay districts up to $60 per student to adopt the materials.

Critics, however, maintain that even with recent revisions, the lessons remain biased toward Christianity, are sometimes misleading and teach complex topics better suited for older children. Others warn that the materials overstep parents’ rights to make decisions about the role of religion in their kids’ lives. 

“All those controversies are gonna bubble up at the local level,” said Eve Myers, a consultant for HillCo Partners, a lobbying and government relations firm whose clients include publishers. Districts with , she said, would likely favor the program, called Bluebonnet Learning, “because it’s aligned with their values,” and those with diverse student populations would see resistance. 

Tuesday’s action was technically preliminary, but board members are not expected to change their positions before a final vote Friday. While Leslie Recine, appointed by Abbott just two-and-a-half weeks ago, had nothing to say during the board’s discussion, her vote proved crucial to the curriculum’s passage.

Democrat Aicha Davis, who expressed opposition to the curriculum earlier this year, vacated the seat Aug. 1 after winning election to the state House in the primary. Abbott could have appointed a replacement then, but waited until Nov. 1.

, also a Democrat, ran unopposed to fill Davis’ seat. She sought to have Secretary of State Jane Nelson, also an Abbott appointee, certify the results in time for her to join the board for Tuesday’s vote. But Nelson didn’t complete the process in time.

Clark, who will represent Dallas and starts in January, told The 74 that she should have cast the deciding vote and would have opted to remove Bluebonnet from the list.

“It’s disappointing that just days before the election, the governor chose to appoint someone else to serve temporarily in this seat,” she said. “It would have made a lot more sense to appoint the person who clearly was going to be elected by the voters in the district.” 

The governor’s office did not respond to questions about the appointment.

She attended the public hearing in Austin Monday, but didn’t get a chance to speak. The comments stretched over eight hours, with passionate arguments on either side.

Compared to a September public hearing on the program, when testimony was overwhelmingly negative, Monday’s statements were more evenly split between opponents and those who say the curriculum will bolster students’ reading skills and teach students the Bible’s important place in Western civilization.

The First Amendment “does not demand strict governmental neutrality towards religion,” Jonathan Covey, director of policy for Texas Values, said during his two minutes to speak to the board. “There is nothing the U.S. Supreme Court has laid down requiring equal time or equal treatment among religious sects.”

His group, which promotes biblical principles in public policy, recruited proponents of the curriculum to sign up to speak. Other , blowing a shofar and shouting “Hallelujah,” turned their demonstration outside the board’s chambers into a worship session. 

But critics called the program a politically motivated curriculum that would leave young children confused about complex matters of faith. Barbara Baruch, a member of the National Council of Jewish Women, San Antonio, urged board members to vote against the program by quoting from their biographies.

“Mr. [Tom]Maynard, you believe in a parent’s right to direct the education of their children. You also work very hard for your denomination. Please don’t let the government direct my children and grandchildren away from their denomination,” she said. “Ms. [Audrey] Young. I know you are married to a pastor. Ask him if he wants the government to teach religion to his congregants, starting at age 5.”

Both Young and Maynard voted to keep Bluebonnet on the list. Maynard, a retired teacher and minister, said he was impressed by what he’s observed in districts that have piloted some of the lessons.

But Evelyn Brooks, a Republican opposed to the program, said there’s not yet enough evidence that the lessons improve reading outcomes.

“We want children to learn how to read and write well and do math without experimenting on them,” she said. “They deserve that.” 

Over the summer, the state made numerous edits based on input from the public, correcting factual errors, adding a few more mentions of other world religions and removing content that some members of the public, especially Jewish parents, found offensive. But a third grade unit on Ancient Rome still includes a lengthy passage on Jesus’ life, ministry and the Resurrection. And lessons on the nation’s founding still emphasize the evangelism of the colonists more than the separation between church and state. 

Other critics Monday said the authors of the curriculum did a poor job of using biblical material to teach both history and language arts. 

“Lessons still make numerous claims that are erroneous, made-up or just plain strange,” Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University, told the board. The state, he said. “contracted with people to write lessons about religion who did not know the material and did not treat it responsibly.”

While the state originally contracted with Amplify, a leading curriculum provider, for its Core Knowledge Language Arts program, it hired a variety of curriculum companies and subject matter experts to further revise the program. Two of them worked for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocated for the program’s approval. The think tank also supports a 10 Commandments requirement for Texas classrooms, which failed in the legislature, but is a top priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick .

Brian Phillips, a spokesman for the foundation declined to comment until the final vote later this week. But in a foundation , former Gov. Rick Perry said he has high expectations of Bluebonnet. 

“Passing that curriculum will have every bit as positive [an] effect as what we did back in the early 2000s that took Texas from 28th in the nation to 2nd in the nation in high school graduation rates,” he said.

Because the biblical material — from the parable of the Prodigal Son to the Last Supper — is interwoven into larger language arts lessons, some said it might be hard for parents to request alternate lessons when they object to aspects of the curriculum.

“I do not think that many parents are aware of the nuances of these lessons,” said Kristi Giemza, a parent and advocate in the Lubbock district, which piloted the materials in a few schools. She expects the district to adopt it. “Because the state is dangling money in front of desperate districts, my guess is they are going to do what it takes to get funding.”

And while a few charter and school choice leaders are quietly supporting the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, seeing it as a watershed moment for religious freedom, others are saying, in so many words: Be careful not to drown.

While public funding would bring unprecedented growth and financial stability to such programs, it could also create a fraught path to the religious freedom they’re seeking, as the burden of complying with court orders and myriad regulations, which even autonomous charters face, could be overwhelming. 

The school and others like it will almost certainly be tied up in litigation for months or years, said Greg Richmond, of the Archdiocese of Chicago Catholic Schools. And that’ll be bad, since it will take precious autonomy away from what should be independent schools’ sole decision-making power.

Richmond said he looked the other day at the website and counted more than 150 regulations, including meeting agenda formats, residency requirements, Open Records Acts rules and more. 

“It’s odd to try to fit a religious school into that regulated charter framework,” he said. “The accountability that comes with charter schools, I think, would be a shock to many Catholic schools in terms of the quantity of measures — academically, financially, operationally.”

That said, what happens when a Catholic charter school teacher, for instance, takes to Facebook to advocate for abortion rights? Are the teacher’s free speech rights protected, as in a public school? Or can the charter school dismiss her because she’s advocating against the teachings of the church?

For their part, charter proponents fear that while the new school may be a good political fit in deep-red Oklahoma, the legal precedent it sets could both damage and perhaps even decimate the larger charter sector in coming years. “It will give opponents of charter schools yet another reason to claim charter schools are not public schools,” said Richmond, who formerly led the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. “So that does represent a threat to charter schools.”

Aside from betraying charter schools’ implicit vow to welcome and educate all students, they say it could further erode charters’ , especially in blue states. They’ve vowed to fight what could soon be one of their own.

In the most recent development, Oklahoma’s virtual charter school board last month turned down an application from the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City to open the new virtual school, a move that proponents say was largely pro forma. 

But Nina Rees, president and chief executive officer of the , said the board’s hesitation likely stemmed from “the strong probability of breaking state law if the school is approved. Should a charter school be authorized that falls outside the scope of the law, it will certainly be challenged in court, and we will be on the side of those seeking to uphold the law and affirm the public, non-sectarian nature of charter schools.”

Public or private actors?

While the Oklahoma case plays out, both sides say the coming weeks could also set in motion one of the most consequential federal court decisions ever about the future of charter schools: The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up a that could wreak havoc with the bedrock idea that charter schools are public schools, as they’ve maintained since the first one opened more than 30 years ago.

The case, , pits three female students against their “traditional values” school, which has required that they wear skirts. In doing so, they say, the school violated their civil rights — its founder has called female students “fragile vessels” and believes the dress code will preserve chivalry, ensuring that girls are treated “courteously and more gently than boys.”

In court filings, the school argued that even though it enjoys public funding, it is a private entity and not a “state actor,” like district schools. So the Constitution’s 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to it, the school maintained. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond last year rejected that argument, setting up a possible hearing in Washington, D.C., before a high court that has already struck down states’ so-called Blaine amendments, allowing public funds to flow to religious schools in small communities without sufficient school capacity.

“It’s not a new conversation,” said Rees. “What’s new about it is that we have a more conservative Supreme Court.”

For Rees, who served as a top official in George W. Bush’s Education Department, the truth of the matter seems clear: “As public schools, we can’t teach religion.”

They also must open their doors to anyone, both students and staff, she said. That could potentially bump up against schools that, as private operations, can openly reject candidates that don’t uphold their beliefs.

Rees and others say the path forward for funding these schools would more appropriately — and legally — be found in another recent development taking place in statehouses nationwide: taxpayer-funded education savings accounts, or ESAs, vouchers and tax credits, which in a few states offer as much money to families for private schooling as charter schools get per pupil.

“In some respects, if you wanted to promote religious education,” Rees said, “the ESA route will get you to that end goal faster, without rules and regulations that come if you open a religious charter school.”

In January, the charter school network Great Hearts, which operates classical education schools in four states and online, said it was doing just that: It announced it was opening a pair of Christian academies in the Phoenix area. But the schools, the network said, would be , funded by the state’s ESA program. 

Jay Heiler, Great Hearts’ CEO, said Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are worth about $7,000 per student, not quite enough to fund a successful private school, but enough “when supplemented with some philanthropic effort, which we’re out there pushing to try to make ends meet, partner-to-partner, with churches that have some existing classroom infrastructure.”

But Brett Farley, executive director of the , which represents the church on public policy issues, said that in most states, ESAs don’t typically provide anything near full per-pupil funding, leaving students a dearth of options, especially in rural areas.

While Rees’ group has vowed to oppose schools like St. Isidore and efforts to reframe charters as private actors, others aren’t so sure. 

Heiler said Great Hearts, which has operated charter schools for more than 20 years, “will continue to follow that pathway,” keeping its religious schools private. But it also in the North Carolina case, arguing that the Supreme Court should decide that charter schools “are not presumptive state actors.” Failure to do so, it said, “will wreak havoc” on education systems more broadly and innovative charters specifically. 

Held up in court ‘for a long time’

Farley said the Oklahoma virtual charter board’s rejection last month was largely routine, giving the archdiocese 30 days to revise aspects of the plan that include how they’ll provide rural broadband statewide and special education services to disabled students. He said the board also wanted to know more about how the archdiocese will address the question of whether a religious public school violates state statute.

“We’re confident we’ll be able to answer all three of those questions sufficiently, and then we’ll move on to a vote,” he said. He anticipated that approval would take place in June. 

But in interviews, he whether the new virtual school would admit LGBTQ students or hire such staff members, saying it would follow state regulations while maintaining its right to operate according to religious beliefs. Asked if gay, lesbian or transgender educators are invited to apply for employment at the school, Farley declined to comment. Like other public schools, charters are prohibited from discriminating based on religious belief, gender identity or similar factors.

He has said he believes that charter schools are non-state actors — Oklahoma’s charter framework, he said, is “very loose.”

M. Karega Rausch, president and CEO of the charter authorizers’ group, said even Oklahoma law is clear: It’s unlawful for a public school, including a charter school, to provide a sectarian education.

Whatever happens with the Oklahoma board, Rausch said, the case will be tied up in litigation “for a long time.”

If the Oklahoma board ultimately rejects the St. Isidore application, the archdiocese can appeal the decision to the state board of education.

Gov. Kevin Stitt has for the effort, but new Attorney General Gentner Drummond has slightly complicated the process: In February, he withdrew an opinion from his predecessor that said the state board would be on solid legal ground if it approved a religious charter school. 

His said state law is “currently unsettled” as to whether charter schools are so-called “state actors” or private school operators. Like many in the sector, he’s awaiting the decision in the North Carolina case.

‘Proceed with caution’

Kathleen Porter-Magee, superintendent of , a network of 11 independent Catholic elementary schools in New York City and Cleveland, said high-performing private schools like hers would love the extra per-pupil allotment that comes with being a charter school: It costs her about $11,500 per student to keep the doors open, yet her students bring in just $800 apiece from New York state in the form of reimbursements for such as required assessments, immunizations and attendance reports. 

Were Partnership’s New York schools to become charters, they’d stand to bring in more than $16,000 per pupil, which the city’s charter schools typically receive, and about half of what they’d get if they were district schools. “We wouldn’t know what to do with that much money,” she said. “It would be just absolutely game-changing for us.”

But it would also complicate matters. “How much freedom do those religious organizations have to live out their faith every day if they are technically running public charter schools?” she asked.

Like many in the school choice world, she’s closely watching what happens in Oklahoma. She’s “deeply conflicted” about the case: Denying public funding to non-profits because of their religious status “feels wrong,” she said, so she supports the archdiocese’s application for charter status.

“From a constitutional standpoint, I think it is the right decision. I think it makes sense. But I just think it’s like, ‘Proceed with caution.’ ”

The Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City plans to apply this month to operate a virtual charter, acting on a recent state that says religious organizations shouldn’t be prohibited from doing so. The state’s Virtual Charter School Board could make a decision as soon as mid-February.

Advocates for religious charters said they began planning their strategy over a year ago as the conservative supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court began to flex its judicial muscle. For the second time in two years, the court agreed to hear a school choice case and later sided with Maine families seeking to use tuition vouchers to attend religious schools.

“We’re not idiots. We know how things are going to play out,” said Brett Farley, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, which focuses on how public policy impacts the church. “We’ve looked at all the [school choice] options out there. Expanding charter options has always been on the short list.”

Even though it’s non-binding, the opinion from now-former state Attorney General John O’Connor and Solicitor General Zach West moves the discussion over religious school choice into a new arena. Recent Supreme Court rulings prohibit states from excluding religious groups from school choice programs. But allowing sectarian instruction in a public school, some legal experts say, goes too far. “Catastrophic” is how Derek Black, a University of South Carolina law professor, described it in .

With charter leaders expecting similar moves in other states, some advocates worry the new direction could splinter a movement that has already drawn frequent criticism

“Public schools have never been able to, and cannot now, teach religion, require attendance to religious services or condition enrollment or hiring on religious beliefs,” said Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Supreme Court precedent regarding public funding for private schools, she added, “simply does not apply to public charter schools.”

Farley said he expected that kind of opposition, but also sees “green lights all around for the movement to press ahead.” 

In Louisiana, for example, charter leaders are watching to see what unfolds in Oklahoma.

“We’ve got large Catholic schools. We’ve got Pentecostals. We’ve got Baptists. We’ve got it all going on,” said Caroline Roemer, executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools. “Absolutely, we’ll see some applicants that lean in on that opportunity.” 

In Oklahoma, Farley said the archdiocese was further encouraged last year when it looked like voters would re-elect Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, a fervent proponent of school choice. Farley consulted Nicole Stelle Garnett, a University of Notre Dame law professor and leading voice for religious charter schools. She is also a colleague of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who taught at the law school.

That sparked the Oklahoma City archbishop’s November 2021 letter to the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, asking if it would consider an application from the archdiocese. The board then sought the attorney general’s opinion.

While some Catholic schools around the country previously converted to charters, they only provide a secular education. For example, Barrett, a conservative Catholic, is affiliated with a church group that has helped . And some Hebrew language charter schools in their afterschool programs. But Black said there’s a big difference between a faith-based organization running a secular charter — likely allowed under the Supreme Court’s rulings in and — and one that would, as Farley said, weave Catholicism into its entire curriculum.

What Farley describes, Black said, “does not involve discrimination based on religious status. Rather, it involves someone who wants to change public education into religious education.”

The U.S. Department of Education did not comment on the potential application.

says a charter school must be “nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations” and “not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution.” 

Black said that, if approved, the archdiocese’s school would violate the Constitution’s ban on government support of religion. 

“I don’t believe even this [Supreme Court] would say that is OK,” he said.

Farley countered there’s no such thing as a “values-free” education and that parents should be able to choose a religious or secular education for their child. A virtual charter, he said, would satisfy a growing demand for Catholic education, particularly in rural areas where parishes lack sufficient students to open brick-and-mortar schools.

‘In the name of the state’

The debate elevates the importance of a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals case that focuses on whether charter schools are public or private.

The that charter schools — even those run by nonprofits — act on behalf of the state, just like traditional schools. But Charter Day School in Leland, North Carolina, unsuccessfully argued that it had the flexibility to adopt its own dress code requiring girls to wear skirts. Families sued, saying the rule violated girls’ civil rights.

The school has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and on Monday, the for an opinion from the U.S. solicitor general, who would argue the case for the Biden administration if the court accepts it.

Regardless of whether charter managers and employees work for nonprofit or religious organizations, the organization authorizing the charter is still “acting in the name of the state,” said Black, who sees the potential for “massive constitutional violations” if states allow charters that explicitly endorse religious instruction.

Oklahoma’s charter association said it is still reviewing the state’s opinion to determine its impact. The national Alliance, meanwhile, has a “legitimate concern” about backlash from blue states, where support for charters is already tenuous, Farley acknowledged. In fact, Black said if courts allow religious charters, states that don’t want them would have no recourse but to eliminate their charter laws.

“You could see states like Massachusetts, California or New York saying, ‘If courts are going to force religious charters on us, we will get rid of them,’ ” he said.