Richard Bircher lives in Lebanon.
The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing states to provide public funding to religious-themed schools is quite encouraging for educational advancement. Of the 54 million U.S. student population, approximately 3.5 million attend religious schools, 3.7 million are homeschooled, and 3.4 million attend charter schools (a variant of the public school system). This means that nearly 20% of young people are being educated outside of the traditional public school system. Understandably, there’s an ongoing conflict between funding options and responsibilities to be provided by the general public.
The concept of fostering social equalitarianism through a universal public school system is certainly not without merit. And yet, it is more than obvious that a universally shared criteria for public education does not exist. Is this literally a matter of the secular versus the sacred, and that the latter should be delineated out of the overall equation because of our Constitution’s declaration of separation between church and state? Or maybe this conventionally used argument is designed to lock out the nonconformity to the libertine, inherent in religion.
Reflecting on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ conversation, “Created Equal,” I was struck by his fond recollection of his primary school years at St. Benedict the Moor Catholic School in Savannah, Georgia. The school was run mostly by Irish nuns and was segregated, as was the rule. The outspoken nuns were much in disapproval of the status quo, but there it stood, without movement. Thomas stated that the students knew the nuns loved them and were completely on their side from day one. There existed a strong code of order, discipline, and respect. Valuable living standards for any of us to learn, especially as young people.
In contrast, many of our vulnerable urban public schools are beset with much the opposite. The root culprit is poverty, which in turn festers into numerous side illnesses; simply described as disruptive, defeatist, and degrading in nature. That the school, social, and oftentimes family environments are at odds with social prosperity creates a most powerful downward suction. The success or failure of the students is largely dependent upon the degree of collateral damage their environment showers upon them, in spite of good intentions. Rather than highlight a culture of failure, a healthy school must defy it.
Why is there such a battle over allowing students and families real alternatives? The main reason that simply can’t be overlooked is the connection between the various teacher unions and their political allies. They have fought charter schools as well as religiously affiliated ones. They, along with their political allies (the unions, including National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, give 94% of their political donations to the Democratic Party) are doing what they were elected to do: promote and protect the interests of one another, using whatever rationale necessary, knowing their efforts will be reciprocated in kind. This is the real world.
However, I believe the root of this resistance goes deeper than simply attempting to maintain a status quo the previously stated parties benefit from. A term that has come into common usage only during the past two years is educationally appropriate here: supply chain. That the teachers’ unions and Democratic Party have maintained a disproportionately powerful presence in public education, in urban areas especially, is clear. You can’t have a group clearly dominated by political, ideological attachments, feign balance. We don’t simply leave our biases and inclinations at home as we head to work.
Compared to more liberally inclined public education, religious schools are attentive to tradition, ritual, sacred authority as well as secular. In other words, more representative of conservatism. Unlike traditional public schools, their graduates would not be primed for easy compliance with the contemporary liberal groundswell of the American university, represented by both faculty and administration. So, these institutions may likely receive fewer easy converts.
To the highly secular, there’s a thematic undercurrent of moral orthodoxy leaning toward the conservative, rooted in traditional religion. Whereas, quite in contrast, secular morality is much less inclined to reach to an established historical context, being quickly drawn to the passions of the moment, where a definitive scrutiny is absent.
The courts are stating with clarity that education is not the exclusive domain of the traditional public school system. That charter schools, homeschooling, and religious schools are valid components of an educational whole, authenticates a moral vision of representative democracy.
To be respectful and inclusive, we don’t all have to sit in the same classroom. Though I personally am not of a religious nature, I am certainly not anti-religious. Their presence in a world both secular and sacred is valid, distinguished, and welcomed.