The Supreme Court's conservative daydream of blending church and state and public education has hit a snag in Oklahoma. Picture this a Catholic run charter school funded by taxpayers. The state attorney general is not amused, but some conservatives are playing risky poker banking on a new Supreme Court tilt. Here's the twist. Conservatives, in their quest for clarity, might inadvertently dismantle the ambiguity that made charter schools
education's cool kids. By targeting the separation of church and state, they could bulldoze the fortress protecting their cherished charter schools. It's a classic case of be careful what you wish for, as the conservative dream of turning public schools into Sunday schools might send their education policies tumbling down. Aimen to that or maybe not. The story is from New Republic by Adam Latts, and before we dive into this, I want to give a little bit bit of a background
here. Being the teacher, I feel obligated to explain what's a charter school. Okay, there's a lot of people have different opinions on what those things are. Here is what the National Charter School Research Center has to say, a charter school is a public school that operates as a school of choice. Charter schools commit to obtaining specific educational objectives in return for a charter to operate a school. Charter schools are exempt from significant state or local regulations related to
operation and management, but otherwise adhere to regulations of public schools. For example, charter schools cannot charge tuition or be affiliated with a religious institution. In other words, charter schools are publicly accountable, They rely on families choosing to enroll their children, and they must have a written performance contract with the authorizing
public chartering agency. Charter schools are also partially autonomous. They have more flexibility in their operations and management of the school than traditional public schools, and so as far as their effectiveness, it's kind of a mixed bag. In general, public charter schools do about as well as they're what we call brick and
mortar or standard model schools. Right. We've found that studies have shown that online charter schools tend to do worse than non charter school than a regular public online school I guess, and like in person, urban charter schools have a tendency to do better, to do better, you know, for a variety of reasons. So that's what charter schools are and how they fit in. And so what we're talking about is a school that can try some kind of
experimental pedagogy and curriculum. Very often, they'll serve underserved populations. Very often they'll have specialized programs or maybe to address particular content issues. They're supposed to be like the green Berets of the education world. Right, there's a problem that the standard soldiers are not handling, so let's send in the special ops.
That's what that's what originally the plan was. Then, of course we had religious creep coming in, so seeping in every little nook and cranny can find, infecting every little piece of government that it can get its hands on. And so it's not surprising that religious leaders and parents are going to try
to use this as an inroad, right. And so the issue that this article about is for many years charter schools have enjoyed this ambiguous you know, they have a certain amount of freedom, but they are they being held accountable, and so that's the issue that's coming to the forefront now across what's your take on that, Well, that was a great summary. By the way, from a legal perspective, charter schools are have traditionally been held to be
public schools. It's basically the conservative's wet dream like they want to privatize everything. They have private companies running prisons, they want private companies running waste management. Anything that the government has traditionally done, they want to privatize. And that's what a charter school is. It's private companies running public schools. I found this particular article a little frustrating to read, and I'll tell you why
his logic he didn't. He spends the whole article talking about the history, which is great, and I do agree that this Oklahoma case is supremely important. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is all over it, ACLU is all over it. The Attorney General of Oklahoma thinks that this is going to be unconstitutional.
It's an open and shut case, and I agree with them. But this article, he spends the ninety percent of it talking about that, and only in the end does he justify his headline where it's saying, hey, this could be the end. And the way he does that is he says, well, either the Supreme Court will hold that it's a public school, in which case we win, or they'll hold it's a private school, in
which case we win. And I didn't see this heads eye wind tails you logic, because this court has shown, more than any other court in my lifetime, a willingness to bend or ignore precedent we already have in the law,
this concept of a quasi public corporation. If you think of phone companies and natural gas companies, those sorts of organizations where the state creates a company or a designates a company as special as handling this natural monopoly, there's no reason this court couldn't, out of thin air create a quasi public school category and put these schools in that and then say, well, they're allowed to do religion. Do I think they'll do that? No, But it's not
quite as open and shut as this author said. That said, I think that they are going to lose. I think the courts will not allow this, and if they do, I will eat my hat as long as the hat is made of I don't know, gummy bears or something like that. Although my favorite part of this article was when he noted two gallop poles. They they asked people American citizens how they would improve public schools, and in one poll it was two percent and another pole three percent said the government should
stop running public pools. That's how a public schools, that's how unpopular that idea is. Public schools are insanely popular in the United States. So if the court messes with it, they're messing with a hornet's nest, very similar to how the GOP creating this court to overturn Roe v. Wade opened a hornet's nest and got into a bunch of knew you were going there. Well, why don't you take it from there? Kelly? See now I got
to follow you again. You know what My favorite quote from the article was the favorable judicial climate has encouraged them to shout so much that they've forgotten how well mumbling have served their interests. And that sums up Yeah, I know, that was great, And that sums up the strategy that the right has
been using for decades. Right, they spent all this time just changing things so slowly that there wasn't a lot of opposition to the things that they wanted and what they were doing just slowly, chip chip chip chip, chippening away at the free society we live in, and it worked. It totally worked, and now it seems that they think that their new found majority in the
skotis in local politics especially and seemingly in the US House. They found this new very loud voice and they're openly publicly and loudly shouting for this drastic agenda that they want past. And it's not really playing well. But let's get back to charter schools. It makes it price sound of the panel. But I think there's a role for charter schools. In the early eighties, I volunteered to teach journalism at a charter school for a semester. I had a
great time doing it, loved it. A couple of decades later, my ex wife taught English at a charter school. Both school it was a different school, but both schools served the same purpose. They were there for kids who had dropped out or had been kicked out of every normal high school in the area, and this was their last chance to get a diploma. And
it was like two different types of kids there. There were the ones that were sixteen and under that were really mostly problem students and didn't really want to be there. But you had these really wonderful kids that were above sixteen didn't have to go to school anymore, didn't fit into a regular classroom, and they were really doing well in this environment. I honestly wish there had been
something like that for me when I was in high school. So I really believe that there was a place for these schools, and I don't want to see him go away. But this, as as Scott mentioned, this religious creep is really really hurting them and I don't see any good coming of it in the future. So I think we really have to be careful about how we let the religion take over the schools and try to keep them secular.
Infidel, do you have anything you want to add to that? First and foremost have to say, I'm glad I'm not following cross Examiner, because right you know, at the end of the day, though, wait, was that kind of slam against Kelly that there Infidel slams me all the time? You should see it. I have to say that we really will find out if we have a case of how much does a yacht vacations paying for your your your adopted or whatever's education you know, and all the things we don't
know what does that buy? Because at the end of the day, it could be a matter. It doesn't have to be either are And I thought that was one of the most alarming things myself, is because the reality is it can be. Yes, it's a paid public charter school that well technically not public. It's paid for and it's teaching religion. And guess what we're okay with it. We're the Supreme Court. Oh well, now is it that easy? Well, we used to think that there's a concept the rule
of law. But the truth is is that I don't know with this group, I really don't know how far they're willing to go. Kelly, you mentioned Mike Johnson or the House. Mike Johnson forget Project twenty twenty five. He leans towards a constitutional convention. So if you talk about something like a constitutional convention, you're talking about school charter schools. We wouldn't be talking about that issue obviously. Having said that, who knows what the Supreme Court does?
And I guess we'll see once again, though, the good thing is is that we know there's going to be an uproar if they go that far. Because one of you mentioned that two or three percent was the minute percentage to say get rid of public schools and something of that nature would be effectively the end of public schools. So if they go that far, if they want to make education another losing bet for them, I hope not, because kids' educations aren't pawns. But we'll see, we'll see where they go with
this, and hopefully it's the right direction. And with that in mind, the right direction would be to talk to Scott boom Boy. That was a nice segue, that was very smooth, and I just totally ruined it by talking about it. But hey, that's what happens. That's what happens here in the nonprofits, right. But across you brought up an interesting point and I was totally taken in by this author the way that he finished the article. So he presented with these two prongs. I'll flesh them out a little
bit a little bit more here. The two prongs were basically, you have to shit or get off the pot. Right. You have to decide are these charter schools public schools? And of course the answer is yes, they are, they are public schools. I also, by the way, side, note here I worked at a public at a church school as well. My experience there was not enjoyable and I left as soon as I could having said that. But yeah, so we need to decide are they are they
public schools? And if so, then they need to follow the rules, right, Or if they're not public schools, then where why are we giving them? Why are we giving them the money? Right? And so you know, I was totally I was totally fished in by that, and I was like, yeah, yeah, all right, yeah, let's see that. Bring it on. And but yeah, you're totally right. I mean, it's this is not you know, for for an ideology that's so much into black and white, the the you know, the conservative side of the
scale. Here Shirt enjoys being in the gray area and this particular subject, and you know, there's no reason that they can't hammer out uh you know, like you said, like a quasi public kind of kind of entity here. They can have it both. I mean, I would feel less comfortable if somebody like Betsy de Vos was back in the you know, in the driver's seat there, you know these days. And this is just my opinion, but I I feel a lot more safe on my uh the fact that
I like public schools, that I'm in favor of public schools. I think that that institution is has been a tool for uh uh, for giving people opportunities to change their lives. And I think that's the one of the main goals of the whole system. And I think that's you know, we need to keep that sacred. And I think that people like that, and and so it's hard to say. It's hard to say what will will happen.
You know, we've seen very popular things taken down in the Supreme Court with Roe v. Wade, right, And so I'm now I'm nervous about this. Now, now you got me nervous, cross, Well, I say, tell me something that makes me feel better. Well, I will. I will emphasize what I said. There's no way that they do that, but they could. And what I said is, I'll eat my hat if
they if they don't find this blatantly unconstitutional. So I the point of me saying quasi public school would be a brand new category they could come up with, is that's the type of thing that the Court might do, were it to try to accommodate something like this. But say what you want about the people on the Supreme Court, Okay, the Renquists and the Scalias and the
Thomases and the Amy Komy. Barretts are all very intelligent people, and even if you are going to attribute some sort of malicious intent to their motives, they know what would happen if they let this go through all of a sudden, States would run to their corners. You'd have charter schools. We'd have a Hindu school, we have an Atheist school, we have a Jewish school, we have an Islamic school, we have a Catholic school, we have
a Protestant school. Like it would turn into exactly what the founders did not want to happen. And that's not good for them either. They know that that's not good. It's much easier for them to say, in a very short opinion, no, you can't do this. This is a public school. See all these older cases. If you want to teach religion, don't take state money. I think that's where they're going to go. I think
that we do need to watch it carefully. Nothing's guaranteed, but this would be ay if they let this happen, If they come up with some sort of middle ground, or if they say, yeah you can, you can take the money in stay a public so you can teach religion. To stay a public school. It would be more earth shattering than anything in my life. Even overturning Row Row, to be honest, was an edge sort of
case when they decided it. This is fundamental to our First Amendment jurisprudence, and the court throughout history has protected the First Amendment more than any other amendment in the Constitution. So what do you think, Kelly, Have I put anybody at ease with that? Yeah, you'd put me more at ease. I totally, seriously, I do so love the idea that by pushing this issue they may in fact kill it. I think that's a great idea.
I realized that it's not a cut and dry situation like the article puts it, But I mean that possibility is there. And one of the things that the article only mentions the legal reasons why this whole idea could die. And I mean, let's face it, Catholic charter schools, Cotton. They haven't gotten a lot of good pres lately. Thank God, see what they did
there. The far right evangelical agenda, while doing alright in some small local areas, in general, is not playing well with the mets with the American public. We saw that in the last election cycle and it could be that this type of religious indoctrination of the youth is on the way out as each successive generation gets less and less religious and more and more liberal. So we may have a bright future or a bright light in the future on this subject,
and it might not even involve the legality of the subject. So I mean that's always something to think about too. Infinitel you have anything you'd like to add. I definitely think that rather than argue the law with cross examiner here, I'll just have to pound the table because really, at the end of the day, I do think that it would be a huge, huge
stretch. I mean, Roe has decided in our lifetime public education has been something that people have felt about the separation of church of state, and that development far way longer than Roe versus Wade. So I can't anticipate them doing that. My biggest concern, of course, is with them. I just have complete lack of confidence in them making the right choice. So what they
do. I do think they're going to reach with some type of compromise, with some sort Now it'll probably be a compromise and name only you know, it'll be a you know, we can declare victory. We got something, but we really didn't, so we'll see. But at the end of the day, changes has been coming to public education for quite a while, but
that's something we're seeing a pushback on from the more extreme sources. So as long as this doesn't go the way we as long as it more accurately, as long as it goes the way we hope it goes, then we could keep our focus back on the real threat to education and put the Supreme Court to bet on this issue for a little while. Scott, you had a few last words. I just wanted to say, I'm still nervous. I'm
still nervous here. You know, if you had, if if you had told me this five years ago, I might have been thinking, Okay, they're not going to mess with this as an honored, haloed institution in this nation. I don't know. I don't know if I'm if I'm all that convinced. I think, you know, in recent years, we've seen that
the respect for hallowed institutions in this country is taking a back seat. And so I think I'm gonna officially lock myself in as as cautiously optimistic, which is kind of like my home there so I'll be cautiously optimistic and that's all I have to say. Well, that's something to say. So you know, what's something I'd like to say before we cut off here is that you can get the nonprofits in the other ACA shows in podcast form at tiny dot c c slash a am Podcasts