Education

Nearly all state funding for Missouri school vouchers used for religious schools

State funding of private-school vouchers is primarily being used for students attending religious institutions, with nearly 98% of funding going toward Catholic, Christian, Jewish and Islamic schools.

This year, state lawmakers passed a budget that included a request from Gov. Mike Kehoe to supply the state-run K-12 scholarship program, MOScholars, with $50 million of general revenue. Previously, the impact to the state’s bottom line was indirect, with 100% tax-deductible donations fueling the program.

Donations are still part of MOScholars’ funding, but the state appropriation has more than doubled the number of scholarships available.

During the 2024-25 school year, MOScholars awarded $15.2 million in scholarships.

In August alone, the State Treasurer’s Office received invoices for scholarships totaling $15.6 million, according to documents obtained by The Independent under Missouri’s open records laws.

The invoice process is unique to the direct state funding of the program. The nonprofits that administer scholarships, called educational assistance organizations, were the sole keepers of scholarship funds. But now, the State Treasurer’s Office holds scholarship money derived from general revenue in an account previously only used for program marketing and administration.

The invoices contained data on which schools MOScholars students are attending and the scholarship amount.

Of the 2,329 scholarships awarded in August, only 59 went to students in nonreligious schools.

Religious affiliation of schools receiving MOScholars funds

In August, over 2300 scholarships were awarded through new state funding, totaling $15.6 million. Most recipients chose to attend a religious school, with a large portion going to Catholic schools.

This number did not surprise Democratic lawmakers, who for years have warned that state revenue was going to be siphoned into religious schools.

“We are simply subsidizing, with tax dollars, parents who would already choose to send their kids to a private school,” state Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat, told The Independent. “And now we are using public dollars to pay for schools that are not transparent whatsoever in choosing who to educate and who not.”

Some schools have been criticized for admission requirements that push a moral standard.

Christian Fellowship School in Columbia, which received scholarships for 63 MOScholars students in August, requires “at least one parent of enrolled students professes faith in Christ and agrees with the admission policies and the philosophy and doctrinal statements of the school,” according to its handbook.

These statements include disapproval of homosexuality.

“The school reserves the right, within its sole discretion, to refuse admission of an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student,” the handbook continues.

With around 430 K-12 students enrolled at Christian Fellowship School, according to National Center for Educational Statistics survey data, MOScholars makes up a sizable portion of its funding. But it is not the only school with a large number of scholarship recipients.

Torah Prep School in St. Louis had 229 K-12 students during the 2023-24 school year. And in August, 197 MOScholars students received funding to attend the school. Torah Prep did not respond to a request for comment.

The high number of students attending religious schools with MOScholars funding is somewhat incidental, somewhat by design.

The MOScholars program allows its six educational assistance organizations to choose what scholarships they are willing to support.

Religious organizations stepped into the role to help connect congregants with affiliated schools. Only two of the six educational assistance organizations partner with schools unaffiliated with religion.

The Catholic dioceses of Kansas City-St. Joseph and Springfield-Cape Girardeau run the educational assistance organization Bright Futures Fund, which administered nearly half of the scholarships awarded in August.

The educational assistance organization Agudath Israel of Missouri focuses on Jewish education, partnering with four Jewish day schools.

The organization’s director Hillel Anton told The Independent that students are attracted to the program for more than just religious reasons.

“(Parents’) first and foremost concern is where their child is going to be able to be in the best learning environment,” Anton said. “And you may have a faith-based school that is fantastic and is able to provide that.”

State-funded scholarships administered in August, by location

This data was compiled from MOScholars invoices issued in August — the first month that scholarships were administered through a state appropriation. During August, over 2000 students received funding through the program.

The demand for the program has long exceeded funding availability. Going into August, organizations had waitlists of students eligible for a scholarship but without funding secured.

Agudath Israel of Missouri couldn’t guarantee scholarships for all of the returning students, Anton said, until the state funding was official.

“Because a lot of the funding is done towards the end of the year… we had everyone on a wait list,” he said. “Because we didn’t know necessarily how much funding we were going to have, we weren’t awarding anyone (the funding).”

Because the program was previously powered by 100% tax-deductible donations, the majority of funds poured in around December. But families need the money months sooner, with tuition due at the start of the school year.

Some educational assistance organizations prefunded scholarships, dipping into their savings to front expenses in the fall. Others had schools that would accept students and wait for payment.

The funding from the state, though, has resolved the backlog and allowed organizations to give scholarships to everyone on their wait list.

“Everyone who qualified for a scholarship this year received one,” Ashlie Hand, Bright Futures Fund’s director of communications, told The Independent.

Bright Futures Fund nearly doubled the number of students it serves, from 1,050 to 1,909.

Agudath Israel of Missouri is growing, too. The new funding helped the organization expand from 175 scholarships last year to 277 this year.

Some expect the state funding to continue next year to support this year’s windfall of scholarships. State Treasurer Vivek Malek told The Independent in May that if donations fall short, he will request state funds to support the new students through graduation.

'Don’t like forced': Backlash as OK superintendent vows Turning Point chapters 'in every ​​​​school'

KOCO News5 reports Oklahoma state superintendent Ryan Walters is getting pushback from his plan to install Turning Point USA chapters in every state high school.

"We’re going to put a Turning Point chapter in every high school in Oklahoma," said Walters after the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. "Last year, we partnered with Charlie to have Turning Point USA brought into Oklahoma high schools."

KOCO reports Nadine Gallagher, a middle school English teacher and president of the Crooked Oak Association of Classroom Teachers, expressed support for student-organized clubs but voiced concerns about outside political influence.

"I don’t have any problem with a student club, if it’s initiated by students," Gallagher said. "If a student were to pop up and say, ‘I would really love to start a club,’ then I’m all for it. If that’s what students are interested in and that’s what students need for whatever their reasons, for social or something that they need for schoolwork, but I don’t like forced anything."

Gallagher added that Oklahoma faces significant educational challenges and implied the state superintendent could better focus on providing educators the resources they need to raise test scores.

"We are 50th in public education, and, surely, there must be something else we could be worrying about in Oklahoma than about clubs for kids," Gallagher said.

Walters is the same Oklahoma superintendent who requested $3 million from state legislators to purchase more than 50,000 Bibles for classrooms. Walters’ bid requirements for the books were very specific, requiring the Bible to be leather-bound and include U.S. founding documents, which favored the "God Bless the USA" Bible marketed by President Donald Trump. The so-called “Trump Bibles,” or “God Bless the USA” Bibles, average in price between $60 and $1,000 for copies signed by the president, who receives fees for his endorsement.

Oklahoma legislators refused Walters’ funding request.

'Distraction': Trump Cabinet member doesn't want Oklahoma MAGA schools chief at her events

Far-right Christian nationalist and Oklahoma schools superintendent Ryan Walters has generated nonstop controversy in his state — most recently, for pushing a policy he says will screen applicants for evidence of "woke" bias by using talk radio host Dennis Prager's PragerU program. And he is so controversial that according to NOTUS, even a top Trump administration official wanted him barred from an event she attended.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was in Oklahoma on Tuesday, August 19 for a bill signing and visited a charter school, Dove Science Academy, with Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). And NOTUS' Reese Gorman reports that "conservative firebrand" Walters "was noticeably missing."

Gorman, in an article published on August 21, explains, "Walters in particular has been a big advocate for school choice, specifically for giving families more access to religious and conservative schools. But he was nowhere to be found on Tuesday — and that was by design. According to three sources familiar with the matter, McMahon and her team specifically asked Oklahoma officials not to include Walters on the trip, fearing his presence would be a distraction."

READ MORE: Trump just crossed a line no other president ever dared to

Gorman notes that Walters, in an August 8 statement, "claimed that the Department of Education had given the state the required waiver to eliminate end-of-year testing in public schools." And Walters told the far-right outlet Real America's Voice, "We went to the Trump administration, and they said they were all for it."

"But the administration hadn't approved it," Gorman reports, "and one of the sources cited the incident as a reason McMahon's team did not want Walters at the event. McMahon had to publicly dispute Walters' comments at the Oklahoma event."

Local reporters, on August 19, asked McMahon if she planned to meet with Walters while she was in Oklahoma — to which she responded, "I don't believe that's on my schedule today."

Gorman observes, "This rebuke from a Cabinet secretary in the Trump administration does not bode well for Walters' potential gubernatorial bid as he tries to occupy the MAGA lane in a primary. He has routinely attempted to force schools to adhere to a strict conservative ideology, angering many Republicans in the state. Oklahoma ranks near the bottom of the country in nearly all education statistics."

READ MORE: 'Nothing short of remarkable': Fox News hosts blasts Trump press secretary

Read the full NOTUS article at this link.

Education secretary hails Columbia settlement as 'monumental victory' over 'far-left'

In its clash with Columbia University, the Trump administration is touting a historic $221 million settlement as a major triumph for conservative ideology—even though it had originally framed the case as a response to antisemitism on college campuses. On Thursday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon hailed the outcome as a “monumental victory for conservatives” while condemning “far-left-leaning professors.”

“Under the terms of the deal to resolve several federal probes into allegations that it had violated anti-discrimination laws,” CNN reported, “Columbia did not admit to wrongdoing but agreed to pay the government a $200 million settlement over three years and an additional $21 million to settle US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations.”

Secretary McMahon, CNN added, “heralded the outcome as a ‘seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment,'” and called it “a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate.”

READ MORE: Tuberville: Dems Must ‘Lawyer Up’ for Plot to Make America ‘Communist’

Thursday morning on Fox News Business, Secretary McMahon offered a different explanation.

“I think that this is a monumental victory for conservatives who’ve wanted to do things in these elite campuses for a long time, because we had such far-left-leaning, you know, professors, and we had 27% of the students that are coming in, you know, are from outside of the United States,” McMahon told host Maria Bartiromo. She noted that the 27% was a statistic from Harvard.

“I’m really pleased with this victory,” McMahon continued. “It wouldn’t have happened if Donald Trump were not president, then I’m really pleased to execute his vision for this, that our campuses are now, what they should be. They are places for debate, they are places for education.”

“They’re not places for left-leaning riots and antisemitism, and I’m really pleased with this result.”

Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, wrote in response to McMahon’s remarks: “This is about advancing an extreme agenda.”

READ MORE: GOP Congressman: ‘Round Everybody Up and Deport Them All’

“This administration,” Spitalnick said, “continues to exploit real concerns about antisemitism to undermine our core democratic norms & institutions. This is not about keeping Jews safe — if it were, they wouldn’t have gutted OCR [Office for Civil Rights] & other key protections.”

Constitutional law professor and political scientist Anthony Michael Kreis warned, “Columbia has now allowed itself to be regulated by a deal. A complete capitulation to the state, yielding their academic freedom to select their students, appoint their faculty, and adopt their curriculum. The Fellows of Magdalen College had more courage against James II in 1687.”

Jordan Acker, who serves on the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents noted:

“Three things can be true here: -Campus faculty, especially in the humanities, needs reform -Antisemitism is a problem on campus -Trump simply cares about destroying higher ed. One and two are fixable. The third is a dire threat to the American way of life and must be fought.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Face plant': College admin applicant 'debased himself' to appease MAGA — and lost anyway

In May, University of Michigan President Santa Ono resigned from that position in order to pursue the same position at the University of Florida. But thanks to Florida's far-right political climate, Ono ended up not getting the job.

During his years at the University of Michigan — where he became president in 2022 — Ono supported diversity initiatives, according to Slate reporter Alex Kirshner. And that came back to haunt him in a big way.

Despite what Slate describes an effort to give himself a "face plant" and downplay the University of Michigan policies he embraced, Slate emphasizes, Ono encountered fierce opposition from MAGA Republicans in the Sunshine State.

READ MORE: The truth behind Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' — and its impact on Obamacare

Slate's Alex Kirshner, in an article published on June 4, explains, "Consistent with his mission to make Florida the kind of place where 'woke goes to die,' Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies had been steadily building up power in Florida's higher-education system. The state's public universities, not just UF in Gainesville, were turning over their presidents at a rapid rate. DeSantis effectively controls the state university system's 'board of governors,' which this past winter, gave itself the power to approve the picks by the campus-level board of trustees."

Kirshner continues, "It was for this conservative audience that Ono had spent weeks, if not longer, trying to establish himself as a good soldier in the culture war against higher education. And it was this same audience that, on Tuesday, (June 3), denied Ono his next job."

The fact Ono "previously supported diversity initiatives" at the University of Michigan, Kirshner emphasizes, was a deal-breaker in Florida.

"Though Ono had gone to pains to distance himself from his own record on that issue," Kirshner reports, "Republican politicians from around the state pounced on it anyway. Donald Trump Jr. asked whether Florida's bosses had 'lost their minds.' Republican Florida Rep. Byron Donalds called for a new search…. Ono had a long, distinguished resume. It didn't help him, because the people who denied him this latest dream job aren't running universities to teach. They're running them to make a point."

READ MORE: Did Trump just make it harder for us to object to all the horrible things he’s up to?

Kirshner adds, "By debasing himself at their feet, Ono helped them do exactly that."

READ MORE: 'Very daunting': Trump just left this swing state on the hook following new cuts to grants

Read the full Slate article at this link (subscription required).

Political scientist warns Trump’s 'vendetta' against Harvard 'will not stop' there

On Friday, May 23, Judge Allison Burroughs temporarily blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's efforts revoke Harvard University's ability to enroll foreign students. Harvard, in its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), attacked the revocation as a "blatant violation of the First Amendment."

Burroughs' ruling was applauded by civil libertarians, who argue that President Donald Trump's vendetta against Harvard has implications that go way beyond that Ivy League university.

Jan-Werner Müller, a Guardian columnist and professor of politics at Princeton University in New Jersey, makes that point in his May 26 column.

READ MORE: 'Illegal and unconstitutional': Harvard hits back at Trump

"Attacks will not stop, and it is naive to think that this is all primarily a Harvard problem, or even only a challenge to higher education," Müller argues. "Noem’s letter to Harvard makes clear that Trump and his sycophants will weaponize the state against anyone who incurs their displeasure. Courts may prevent the worst, but the whole pattern has to end if we want to have any hope of living in a country free of fear and featuring at least minimum respect for the rule of law."

Müller continues, "As Harvard’s lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security rightly pointed out, Noem’s revocation fits into the Trump Administration’s orgy of vengeance prompted by Harvard’s refusal to comply with evidently illegal demands issued in mid-April."

Trump and Noem, Müller warns, are making a concerted effort to "instill fear" in the president's critics.

"It is a well-known pattern in authoritarian regimes that underlings try to please the leader by anticipating his wishes and imitating his style," the Guardian columnist/Princeton professor explains. "Official letters, posts, and press statements from DHS and the Department of Education not only fail to provide evidence and violate procedural safeguards; they not only make up ad hoc demands that have no basis in law — they also contain the signature capital letters, spelling mistakes, and kindergarten-level invective familiar from the president's rhetoric."

READ MORE: Fed chair calls out Trump’s Harvard attacks during bombshell Princeton speech

Müller adds, "It is governance driven by a desire to please Fox viewers, online MAGA mobs, and the avenger-in-chief…. But Noem's rhetoric also aligned with the logic of authoritarian populist leaders who claim uniquely to represent what they call 'the real people': even citizens will not be free from the accusation by Trump and his sycophants that they are not proper Americans."

READ MORE: 'Recession!': Analysis reveals a change in spending habits — despite what economists say

Jan-Werner Müller's full column for The Guardian is available at this link.

'You've officially overreached': Morning Joe crew slams Trump for bullying institutions

The Trump Administration escalated its campaign against Harvard University on Monday, May 5 when the U.S. Department of Education announced that the Ivy League institution will receive no new federal grants until it agrees to a series of demands. President Donald Trump is hoping to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status, and The Trump Administration already froze $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard.

During a Tuesday morning, May 6 conservation on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," two Never Trump conservatives — host Joe Scarborough and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) — were critical of Harvard for, they said, marginalizing conservative voices on campus. But they were much more critical of Trump, arguing that bullying Harvard is not a good way to address the university's "liberal bias."

Scarborough told Cubelo and fellow "Morning Joe" host Mika Brzezinski, "Republicans — former Republicans — we've always rightly been concerned about not only elitism, but also, about antisemitism, and a lot of the elite, elite universities across the country. And also, just the liberal bias that that has permeated so many of the departments. It seems to me, if you look at people running, now, Harvard, Yale some of the best schools in America — they've been making these adjustments. They understand there's a problem."

READ MORE: How MAGA Republicans could 'disenfranchise' millions of voters in 2026

Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, continued, "And you look at the polls that have come out: Americans do not like the federal government interfering in colleges and universities, even Harvard. Like, when you've got the American people on the side of Harvard, you've officially overreached. I'm curious, what is your recommendation? What would your recommendation be to Republicans on the Hill, Republicans in the (Trump) Administration, on the best way to go about doing this and defusing it?"

Carbelo agreed with Scarborough that "some of these universities" have "gone too far" and "shut out certain points of view."

"That's wrong, and we should encourage that improving," Carbelo told Scarborough and Brzezinski, "But when the government starts telling so many institutions how they have to behave — what exactly they have to do in a fairly subjective manner — I think that Trump coalition really starts to break down, especially those Hispanic voters…. I mean, it really starts to sound like big, big, massive government permeating all, you know, sectors of society and telling people what they have to do, how they have to think, how they have to live, what they have to become used to."

Carbelo continued, "I mean, that's why a lot of Hispanics came to this country: to flee, right, from that kind of big government, heavy- handed approach to managing a society. So I think, yeah, most people (feel) like, yes, these universities should reform. They certainly should abide by certain standards, but are we going to go in there and actually tell them what they have to teach, what they can't teach? I mean, that's a bit much, and I really think it starts to threaten and challenge that coalition the president put together."

READ MORE: 'Galvanized the left': Ex-Trump lawyer and Dem consultant trade heated barbs on MAGA policy

Watch the full video below or at this link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

'Ground shifted': Major institutions are realizing 'complicity' with Trump only makes things worse

Harvard University appears to have become a symbol of resistance against President Donald Trump after it vowed this week to challenge a broad set of demands from the administration.

As the oldest university in the United States, Harvard's defiance of Trump is being described as remarkable.

In a memo to Harvard students and faculty released on Monday, the university's president, Alan Garber, noted that "the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to 'maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.'"

ALSO READ: 'Self-inflicted wound': Historian details 'tragedies' of Trump’s institutional dismantling

"It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the 'intellectual conditions' at Harvard," he added.

Explaining the university's position on the matter, Garber said, "No government —regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The statement received widespread applause, including from former President Barack Obama, who praised Harvard for setting "an example for other higher-ed institutions."

“Let’s hope other institutions follow suit," Obama wrote on the social platform X.

ALSO READ: The only way to deal with Trump's demands for capitulation

In an article in Salon published Wednesday, political writer Amanda Marcotte said Harvard's decision to stand up to the president is notable because many other institutions who received similar demands chose to cave in.

"The appeasement politics of university administrations — most notably at Columbia, where officials agreed to a series of draconian anti-student policies after Trump threatened $400 million in federal funding. Using the blatantly disingenuous pretext of 'fighting anti-semitism,' the school caved to Trump's demands to silence campus protests with threats of student discipline and even arrest. The choice of Trump over the safety of their own students sparked public outrage, but it felt futile, as though such cowardice would be the standard for all elite schools in a second Trump term," she wrote.

Marcotte said Harvard may have understood that saying no to Trump did not "cost" them two billion dollars.

"As Columbia is learning the hard way, he was always going to find an excuse to withhold the money. Might as well not give up your dignity along with it. Compliance, however, amounted to consenting to what Stanford professor Adrian Daub calls 'a controlled demolition, with each demand a charge to knock out another pillar of academic freedom.'"

ALSO READ: 'Create fear and division': Republican's 'chaos agent' argument blasted as 'just silly'

She said Columbia administrators thought they were coming to a solution. "Instead, the White House is pushing to create federal oversight of Columbia so that a MAGA loyalist can have granular authority over the school's daily operations."

AlterNet reached out to the White House for comment.

ALSO READ: 'Grave sign': Yale scholar delivers 'warning to Americans' before fleeing 'fascist dictatorship'

'Unlawful behavior': George Will slams Trump’s 'chest-thumping' and 'defiance of clear legal stricture'

Over the years, conservative Washington Post columnist George Will has never been shy about criticizing left-wing professors and activists on college campuses — often arguing that "freedom of expression" suffers when conservative and libertarian students are discouraged from speaking their minds. Academia, Will often says, should not be a "safe space" for the left, but rather, an environment in which the left and the right are encouraged to engage in vigorous debates.

But in his March 28 column, the 83-year-old Will is vehemently critical of the Trump Administration's attacks on Columbia University and other major colleges. President Donald Trump, the Never Trumper warns, isn't doing conservatism any favor by trying to bully and intimidate academia and threatening to withhold funding.

"The Trump Administration's coercion of Columbia University involved reciprocal misbehavior by the school and the government," Will emphasizes. "This and other threatened punishment is probably a harbinger of further unlawful behavior by a lawless government against teaching institutions that are slow learners. Columbia was dilatory and incompetent in dealing with demonstrations that disrupted education and created a hostile campus environment for a disfavored minority, Jews."

READ MORE: We’re talking to our neighbors about the MAGA rampage — and people are listening

Will adds, "Columbia deserved to pay a cost for this violation of existing laws and regulations. There are, however, other pertinent rules."

The conservative columnist believes the Trump Administration was out of line when it sent Columbia University a heavy-handed letter on March 13.

Will writes, "The (Trump) Administration's March 13 letter to Columbia ordered 'immediate compliance' with its demands for: expulsion of certain students and student groups, reform of admissions policies and disciplinary procedures, and government supervision ('receivership') of the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African studies department. But Keith E. Whittington, director of Yale Law School's Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech, notes: 'Federal statutes require that the government demonstrate with a written report to Congress and after a full hearing that there has been a legal violation before an educational institution can have its funding cut off.'"

Trump and his allies, according to Will, fail to realize that in the future, a liberal presidential administration may use similar tactics against conservatives in academia.

READ MORE: 'Game over': Yale fascism expert moving to Canada because US is becoming a 'dictatorship'

"The current administration's disregard of the law does not seem like carelessness," Will laments. "It seems to be a chest-thumping expression of the belief that respecting legal boundaries is for weaklings. Defiance of clear legal strictures…. indicates that some 'conservatives' are jealous that progressives have been having all the fun throwing the government's weight around. Be that as it may — and however much Columbia, Penn and many other institutions have forfeited the public's sympathy — government should not slice through the law to get at them."

READ MORE: 'Open declaration': Hegseth slammed over new tattoo seen as insult 'to the Muslim world'

George Will's full Washington Post column is available at this link (subscription required).


'Just ethics': Alabama threatens funding for schools that don’t say Pledge of Allegiance and prayer

A bill proposed in Alabama would require schools to begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer -- or else, the school will lose millions in funding. Lawmakers debated the bill on Wednesday, AL.com reported.

“It’s just ethics and the basics of what our country is built on,” said Republican Rep. Reed Ingram, the bill’s sponsor.

HB231, a constitutional amendment, would apply to kindergarten through 12th grade. If a school does not follow the requirement, the state Superintendent would “withhold twenty-five percent of state funding allocated to the offending local board of education,” according to the bill.

READ MORE: 'Un-Christian': Student 'nearly ruined' by evangelical education sounds alarm on public school trend

“My biggest concern is the punitive aspect of taking 25 percent education funding from schools that don’t comply,” said Democratic Rep. Marilyn Lands. For example, Birmingham City Schools get about $158 million in state funding, so they would lose nearly $40 million.

The legislation requires “a prayer consistent with Judeo-Christian values,” although it is unclear what that prayer would look like.

“Lands asked Ingram if a silent prayer would be allowed. Ingram responded that the focus was on reciting a Judeo-Christian prayer, comparing the public displays within the legislation to the nation’s motto, ‘In God We Trust.’ The motto was added to government buildings throughout the state eight years ago under the influence of conservative activists,” AL.com’s John Sharp reported. Students would not be required to take part in the prayer, Ingram said.

Ingram said that there is a law, amended in 2019, requiring public schools to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance, but not all do.

READ MORE: MAGA’s 'chaotic attempt to shut down' USAID put $500 million of food supplies at risk — and more

“Our recruiting is down for the National Guard,” Ingram said. “It’s down in every branch of the military. A lot of these kids don’t understand what the flag is.”

“The bill is coming at a time when a number of GOP-led states are testing the separation of church and state limits in public schools,” Sharp writes.

The legislation was passed by the House State Government Committee and is now set to be considered by the full House.

'Un-Christian': Student 'nearly ruined' by evangelical education sounds alarm on public school trend

The religious right is pushing Christianity into schools, and that can have serious repercussions -- journalist Josiah Hesse knows firsthand. In a piece at the Guardian published Wednesday, Hesse writes that “Trump’s promise to ‘bring back prayer to our schools,’ shut down the Department of Education and embrace ‘school choice’ fulfills an evangelical wishlist I’d heard about throughout my childhood.”

He attended Christian schools growing up. “The longer I stayed at the school,” he writes of the evangelical school he attended junior year, “the deeper I fell into a malaise of depression and self-harm. In addition to the stress of bullies, I had trouble getting my mind around the logic of these classes, and knew that if I didn’t understand it, and believe it, eternal torture awaited me.”

Besides, “the apocalypse was at hand, so who had time for algebra?”

READ MORE: Federal courts are unlikely to save democracy from Trump’s attacks — an expert explains why

He switched to public school for his senior year, where his credits didn’t transfer because the Christian school was not accredited by the government.

“Twenty-five years later,” Hesse writes, “Donald Trump and the Christian nationalist movement that put him in the White House (twice) are seeking to transform public education into something similar to what I was reared on, where science, history and even economics are taught through an evangelical conservative lens, while prayer and Bible reading are foundations of the curriculum.”

“These efforts test the boundaries of the constitution’s establishment clause, reversing a century of civil rights victories in public schools, and have the potential to fundamentally alter the way American children learn – and what they learn about,” he writes.

He explains that the indoctrination comes in two ways: putting Christian rhetoric into public schools, and using tax dollars to contribute to private religious schools through vouchers that cover tuition. A 2022 Supreme Court ruling allowed private religious schools to receive government funding.

READ MORE: 'It's just fiction': Senate Republican slams House GOP's 'fruitless exercise'

Hesse points out that the top education official in Oklahoma, for example, has mandated that those teaching grades 5-12 incorporate the Bible into their classes. Louisiana passed a law that classrooms must display the Ten Commandments, although a judge blocked it. Back in 2012, Florida considered a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to fund religious schools, which is worth noting because it was supported by Pam Bondi, now Trump’s attorney general.

“Attempting to indoctrinate public school students into Christianity is not only unconstitutional and un-American, it’s deeply un-Christian,” Democratic Texas state representative James Talarico, a former public school teacher, told the Guardian. He has been fighting an optional new curriculum that would teach Bible stories in elementary schools. What’s more, the Texas voucher system can fund homeschool students. “So we taxpayers will be funding homeschool programs that teach students the earth is flat,” he said.

“Talarico views Texas’s efforts to create a voucher program for private Christian schools as not only bad for Jewish, Muslim and LGBTQ+ students, but also as stealing from the poor to serve the rich,” Hesse writes. A low-income student would not be able to afford $20,000 tuition with an $8,000 voucher, but a wealthy one could.

As for Hesse, he was able to get his GED. “Colleges and universities, I was told, were even worse than public schools in their liberal indoctrination, so I drifted through a decade of low-wage jobs in factories, restaurants and construction sites, as my fellow students who’d graduated from public school, then college, ascended the socioeconomic ladder.” Eventually, he began teaching himself, leading to a career in journalism.

READ MORE: 'Hurt working people most': GOP senator from deep red state unleashes on Trump’s tariffs

“I have often felt a deep sorrow for students enduring the bubble of private Christian education – particularly the poor and queer ones. Now it seems that compassion must extend to those in public schools as well,” he writes.

'Not legal': Trump may dissolve Dept. of Education in days, Democrat warns

The U.S. Department of Education may be “dissolved” in the coming days, U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) reportedly has said, claiming that Elon Musk’s DOGE team currently is “actively dismantling” Department of Education programs.

Congresswoman Stansbury “said Elon Musk’s DOGE team is ‘actively dismantling’ federal Department of Education programs today,” HuffPost White House and congressional reporter Jennifer Bendery wrote Tuesday afternoon.

“They are in the building, on the 6th floor, canceling grants and contracts,” Stansbury said.

“Stansbury says her understanding is the Trump admin ‘has been running drills for the last couple of weeks, planning for this,'” Bendery reports. “She also said she expects that ‘the Department of Education is going to potentially be dissolved in the coming days.’ And yes, this is illegal.”

READ MORE: ‘Serious Injuries to Public Health’: Judge Scorches Trump Removal of Health Websites

“It’s not legal. They know it’s not legal. But they’re doing it anyway,” Stansbury told Bendery. “The only recourse we have right now is to … go the courts.”

The U.S Department of Education was created in 1979 by an act of Congress and would legally require another race of Congress for it to be shut down.

Musk, according to The New York Times, has announced cuts at the Department of Education of more than $900 million.

“Most, if not all, of the contract cuts hit the Institute of Education Sciences’s portfolio, including Education Innovation and Research grants and review projects associated with the What Works Clearinghouse, which produces and curates research on best practices in education, according to three people familiar with the department’s contracting. The people requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal because they were not authorized to discuss the cuts,” the Times noted.

“Less than two weeks after the release of new federal testing data showing reading achievement at historic lows, the cuts were likely to hit research intended to answer questions about some of the biggest problems in American education since the Covid-19 pandemic, such as absenteeism and student behavioral challenges.”

Should Trump go through with attempting to eliminate the Department of Education by means not including Congress, it would be up to the federal courts to stop him. But Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, along with a growing number of their allies, appear to have convinced a number of his MAGA base that judges should not have the ability to block any actions the president takes. Judges, however, can, and do.

Last week, MSNBC reported that “Elon Musk says Department of Education no longer ‘exists’.”

Democrats on Tuesday hit back.

READ MORE: General Slams Pentagon’s ‘Racist’ Decision to Drop Key Black Engineers Recruitment Event

“The chaos and the corruption at the White House continues unabated,” U.S. Rep. Pete Aguilar said Tuesday (video below). “Elon Musk has illegal access to sensitive personal information of every taxpayer in America. He’s setting his sights on cutting Social Security benefits for American seniors who have earned their benefits over a lifetime of work, just so Tesla can continue to pay zero dollars in federal taxes.”

“And now Donald Trump has directed him to launch a Republican war on students by dismantling the Department of Education,” the California Democratic congressman continued. “President Trump and Elon Musk want to cut public education for our children and our neighborhood schools to finance a five trillion dollar tax giveaway to billionaires and wealthy corporations. By eliminating the Department of Education, Republicans are sending a clear message that they don’t care about our children reaching their full potential.”

“The American people did not vote for their neighborhood schools to be closed or class sizes to be larger. They did not vote to cut special education. The Republican war on students won’t lower the cost of eggs or groceries, but it will raise property taxes as the costs of Trump’s education cuts will be forced onto parents and homeowners,” Aguilar said.

Watch the video below or at this link.

'They’re not letting us in': Members of Congress locked out of Department of Education

Democratic members of Congress were denied entry to the Department of Education on Friday morning as they gathered to protest President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s proposal to do away with the agency, according to a video one lawmaker posted on X.

“I’m here with multiple members of Congress. We’re here to go to the Department of Education to fight for education, and they have locked the doors,” said Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) in a video. “They’re not letting us in; it says ‘All Access Entrance’; there’s a random guy out here who’s refusing to let us in—”

“His name is Jim Hairfield,” Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told Frost. Hairfield is the deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Security at the Education Department.

READ MORE: 'Assault on America’s children': Experts condemn Trump order to dismantle Dept. of Education

“And right here they have armed officers, as well, acting like we’re dangerous,” Frost continued, panning to two men through the window who were wearing uniforms that said “POLICE DHS.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Trump’s plan to “dismantle” the Department of Education earlier this week. The agency oversees student loans, application of special education laws, and a program geared toward low-income students. It was created by Congress in 1979, and can only be shut down by Congress.

At least 74 staff members of the agency have been put on administrative leave, according to Sheria Smith, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252.

"It looks very suspicious," Smith told NPR. "Nothing we've seen gives any rhyme or reason as to why these employees were chosen."

READ MORE: A funny thing happened on the way to closing the U.S. Department of Education

"A lot of what the administration is doing is testing boundaries," Rick Hess of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told NPR, "so we'll see how this works and what might happen in court. I imagine there will be some thinning of the workforce, but it's hard to predict how aggressively they'll move."

“A year ago I’d be able to walk into this building and not be locked out,” Frost said. “Elon is allowed in, but not you, not your elected representatives, not parents, not students. Elon can go in, his goons can go in, but not the representatives of the people.”

'Now a kid might get in trouble': This state takes book ban to new level

In addition to banning over a dozen books from school libraries and classrooms six months ago, the Utah State Board of Education is now prohibiting students from bringing their own copies of those books into the building, The Washington Post reports.

"These titles should not be brought to school or used for classroom activities, assignments, or personal reading while on school property," the State Board's guidelines reads, according to the public radio station KUER.

Authors including Judy Blume, Margaret Atwood and Sarah J. Maas' books are included on the banned list, which Let Utah Read co-founder Peter Bromberg told the Post "could grow quickly" in the coming weeks.

READ MORE: ‘Literally heartbreaking as a librarian:’ 150 titles pulled from Tennessee school libraries

"Now a kid might get in trouble or be disciplined for bringing a book to school that has not been adjudicated by a judge or a court of law, or even their own school district board that’s been elected by their own community," Bromberg told the newspaper.

Asron Terr, director of public advocacy at FIRE, a free-expression organization, argues that banning students from bringing their own copies is much worse than banning the books from school libraries.

"We've seen plenty of disputes over schools removing books from school libraries and whether that amounts to a ban. But this is different. This is an escalation," he told the Post. "This goes beyond the school deciding what to include in its own curriculum or library. The state is banning students from personally possessing books that they have a First Amendment right to access and read on their own time."

Terr added, "For the same reason that public schools can’t ban a student from wearing a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War, they can’t ban a student from, say, bringing a book in their backpack that is antiwar or otherwise expresses ideas that make people uncomfortable or that some people think are inappropriate."

READ MORE: Most book bans target children’s lit featuring diverse characters and authors of color

The Washington Post's full report is available at this link (subscription required).


'Reject this rule': OK schools want to make parents report citizenship status to enroll kids

In Oklahoma, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters — a far-right Christian nationalist — has aggressively pushed a program to teach fundamentalist Christianity in public schools. Now, Walters is, according to CNN, applauding a proposed rules change that would require parents to report their immigration or citizenship status when enrolling their children in those schools. And the proposal is getting a strong pushback from the National Immigration Law Center and others.

The Oklahoma Board of Education is expected to vote on the proposal this Tuesday, January 28.

CNN's Eric Levenson explains, "The Board's proposal comes as President Donald Trump and Republican leaders have pledged to crack down on undocumented immigrants and carry out a mass deportation plan. Last week, Trump signed a series of executive orders expanding the power of immigration authorities and issued a directive allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest people in schools — a departure from longstanding policy."

READ MORE: 'Left-wing narrative': OK schools chief accuses CNN host of 'gaslighting' on pro-Trump prayer video

Levenson adds, "Oklahoma, too, has been at the forefront of a Republican push to transform public education under Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters. Last year, the Board of Education required all schools to incorporate the Bible and Ten Commandments in their curriculums."

On Monday, January 27, Walters reiterated his support for the proposal in an official statement.

Walters claimed, "Schools are crippled by the flood of illegal immigrants and the Biden/Harris open border policy. Oklahomans and the country elected President Trump and we will do everything possible to help put Oklahoma students first."

But Nicholas Espíritu, deputy legal director for the National Immigration Law Center, voiced his vehement opposition in a January 17 letter to the Oklahoma Department of Education.

READ MORE: Apocalypse Now: Extreme interpretation of Christian nationalism now guides Pentagon policy

Espíritu wrote, "All children have a constitutional right to equal access to education regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. Requiring school districts to collect information about immigration status illegally chills access to this opportunity, interfering with their ability to focus on their core mission: to educate children and give all students the ability to grow, thrive, and participate fully in our democracy. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject this rule."

READ MORE: Former federal prosecutor reveals why Trump birthright citizenship order is doomed

Read the full CNN article at this link.



KY superintendent has three words for this 'school choice evangelist’s complaint

A Texas man filed a complaint against a Kentucky school district this week, according to News From The States, alleging that his "online speech" was "restricted" after "he criticized the school district’s posts opposing the amendment that would have opened a path to school vouchers and charter schools" in the state.

Per the report, Corey DeAngelis — whose Cato institute bio says "he has been labeled the 'school choice evangelist'" — was blocked from the Pulaski County Schools Facebook page "after he raised questions last August" concerning the amendment.

"Bless his heart," Pulaski County Schools Superintendent Patrick Richardson said in response to the complaint.

READ MORE: Despite Trump’s win, school vouchers were again rejected by majorities of voters

"Oddly enough, I wonder why a person from Texas would be so interested in Kentucky, especially Pulaski County?"

He added, "I really don’t have a comment on something I have not officially been made aware of yet."

News From The States reports DeAngelis — who also serves on the board of the constitutional law firm Liberty Justice Center
said "he filed the lawsuit to uphold the First Amendment rights of all Americans and remedy the issue for Kentucky families that may follow the school district’s page and were not able to voice their opinion while all comments were limited on the online posts."

READ MORE: Mike Johnson retaliates against House Republican who voted against him in speaker election

News from the States' full report is available at this link.

Why Trump’s goal to abolish key federal agency will be an 'extremely difficult task': report

One longtime goal of the conservative movement has been to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. But that may prove to be out of reach despite President-elect Donald Trump having Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress.

The Guardian reported Saturday that the Department of Education, which was first established under the late former President Jimmy Carter's administration, has been in the right's crosshairs since its inception. Reporter Rachel Leingang wrote that Trump alone "cannot eliminate a department, making it an extremely difficult task to accomplish." She also noted that "Congress is requested to approve the creation or demise of an agency," rather than the executive branch.

Project 2025 — the far-right Heritage Foundation's notorious policy blueprint for Trump's second administration — has also called for the abolition of the Education Department. But Rick Hess, who is the director of education policy studies at the Koch-funded American Enterprise Institute, said that merely eliminating the department wouldn't be sufficient.

READ MORE: Here are the 5 Project 2025 authors Trump has already nominated for his Cabinet

"At some level, it’s the wrong conversation, because you could abolish the Department of Education and little to nothing would actually change unless Congress also voted to cut or zero out funding for the various programs," he said.

Because Senate rules require 60 votes to bypass a filibuster by either party, it's not likely that the 53-seat Republican majority will be able to win over seven Democrats to eliminate the Education Department. But funding for federal education programs will be up for debate in each respective chamber's appropriations committees and on the floor when government funding bills are being negotiated. Hess viewed the debate over the continued existence of the Education Department as "symbolic" given what it represents according to conservatives.

"They think it’s a gross violation of the constitutional scheme,” Hess told the Guardian. “They think it takes too much power from communities and shifts it to bureaucrats in Washington.”

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) said during his campaign that eliminating the Department of Education would save $30 billion. He also suggested it was no longer needed, claiming it was only established so "little Black girls could go to school down South" when schools were being racially integrated.

READ MORE: GOP Senate candidate: Department of Education only created to help 'little Black girls'

However, Penn State associate professor Kelly Rosinger, who specializes in education policy studies, argued that eliminating the Education Department would "clear signal that we don’t view education as important in a democratic society."

"There is some very real damage that could be done, regardless of whether a Department of Education exists, but especially if it doesn’t," Rosinger said.

She also expressed concern that Project 2025 — which calls for increased privatization of public schools in the form of vouchers — would eventually make Americans "lose trust in public education to be able to do the job that the federal, state and local governments are supporting it to do, in order to justify further defunding public schools and colleges."

Click here to read the Guardian's article in its entirety.

READ MORE: Unlikely Trump can actually eliminate Education Department: experts

'It’s about to get worse': Conservatives target Harvard in effort to 'reshape education'

A handful of Republican leaders — some nominated to assume positions in Donald Trump's Cabinet — are planning to use their newfound power in the coming months to "reshape higher education," according to a Monday Bloomberg report. And they're starting with Harvard University.

Per the report, the Harvard Crimson found in a survey that "only 13% of this year’s graduating seniors describe themselves as conservative or very conservative and more than three-quarters of faculty identify as liberal."

After Harvard computer science Professor Harry Lewis found out some "teachers offered condolences to students and told them classes were optional" following Trump's victory over Kamala Harris last month, the former Harvard College dean believes "the infantilization of students and politicization of the classroom" has become a real problem.

READ MORE: 'Repellent' report shows 'commonality between' Trump and ex-AG pick: NYT editor

"We’ve allowed significant numbers of faculty to think the way that they are going to change the world is through some kind of social activism and that this is part of their responsibilities or opportunity as a scholar," he told Bloomberg.

The news outlet reports, "This fractious environment — in which faculty, students, administrators, activists and government officials are all at odds with one another — has made the job of university President Alan Garber, 69, particularly difficult. And for the physician and economist, installed as interim leader after [ex-President Claudine] Gay’s resignation in January, it’s about to get worse."

Right-wing leaders like Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), former congressman and Vice President-elect JD Vance, and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) have all recently publicly condemned the university for different reasons, including the school's endowments — which Vance said should have "massive tax hikes" — and the "lack of severe punishment" the university received after allowing students to protest the Israel-Palestine conflict on campus.

Aside from lawmakers, far-right activist Christopher Rufo is leading the charge to ensure the Trump administration makes Harvard its priority on its massive mission to change higher education.

READ MORE: 'Do their jobs': Dems split on 'building an effective opposition' to Trump’s second term

Rufo told Bloomberg, "If we can extract changes from Harvard, if we can push it in a better direction, other universities will look at that as a signal and adjust their policies."

Harvard Classics Professor Richard Thomas told the news outlet, "Anti-democratic forces would gladly dismantle higher education."

He added, "Harvard may have to decide between living without federal funding or being dependent on submission to extreme political control that could come with that funding."

READ MORE: How Trump could try to ban trans athletes from school sports — and why it won’t be easy

Bloomberg's full report is available here (subscription required).

Despite Trump’s win, school vouchers were again rejected by majorities of voters


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Series: School Wars:How Battles Over Vouchers, Book Bans, COVID-19 and More Are Harming Public Education

More in this series

In 2018, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected school vouchers. On the ballot that year was a measure that would have allowed all parents — even the wealthiest ones — to receive taxpayer money to send their kids to private, typically religious schools.

Arizonans voted no, and it wasn’t close. Even in a right-leaning state, with powerful Republican leaders supporting the initiative, the vote against it was 65% to 35%.

Coming into this week’s election, Donald Trump and Republicans had hoped to reverse that sort of popular opposition to “school choice” with new voucher ballot measures in several states.

But despite Trump’s big win in the presidential race, vouchers were again soundly rejected by significant majorities of Americans. In Kentucky, a ballot initiative that would have allowed public money to go toward private schooling was defeated roughly 65% to 35% — the same margin as in Arizona in 2018 and the inverse of the margin by which Trump won Kentucky. In Nebraska, nearly all 93 counties voted to repeal an existing voucher program; even its reddest county, where 95% of voters supported Trump, said no to vouchers. And in Colorado, voters defeated an effort to add a “right to school choice” to the state constitution, language that might have allowed parents to send their kids to private schools on the public dime.

Expansions of school vouchers, despite backing from wealthy conservatives, have never won when put to voters. Instead, they lose by margins not often seen in such a polarized country.

Candidates of both parties would be wise “to make strong public education a big part of their political platforms, because vouchers just aren’t popular,” said Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, a teachers union. Royers pointed to an emerging coalition in his state and others, including both progressive Democrats and rural Republicans, that opposes these sweeping “school choice” efforts. (Small-town Trump voters oppose such measures because their local public school is often an important community institution, and also because there aren’t that many or any private schools around.)

Yet voucher efforts have been more successful when they aren’t put to a public vote. In recent years, nearly a dozen states have enacted or expanded major voucher or “education savings account” programs, which provide taxpayer money even to affluent families who were already able to afford private school.

That includes Arizona, where in 2022 the conservative Goldwater Institute teamed up with Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP majority in the Legislature to enact the very same “universal” education savings account initiative that had been so soundly repudiated by voters just a few years before.

Another way that Republican governors and interest groups have circumvented the popular will on this issue is by identifying anti-voucher members of their own party and supporting pro-voucher candidates who challenge those members in primary elections. This way, they can build legislative majorities to enact voucher laws no matter what conservative voters want.

In Iowa, several Republicans were standing in the way of a major new voucher program as of 2022. Gov. Kim Reynolds helped push them out of office — despite their being incumbents in her own party — for the purposes of securing a majority to pass the measure.

A similar dynamic has developed in Tennessee and in a dramatic way in Texas, the ultimate prize for voucher advocates. There, pro-voucher candidates for the state Legislature won enough seats this Tuesday to pass a voucher program during the legislative session that starts in January, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said.

The day after the election, Abbott, who has made vouchers his top legislative priority, framed the result as a resounding signal that Texans have now shown a “tidal wave of support” for pro-voucher lawmakers. But in reality, the issue was conspicuously missing from the campaigns of many of the new Republicans whom he helped win, amid polling numbers that showed Texans hold complicated views on school choice. (A University of Houston poll taken this summer found that two-thirds of Texans supported voucher legislation, but that an equal number also believe that vouchers funnel money away from “already struggling public schools.”)

In the half dozen competitive Texas legislative races targeted in this election by Abbott and the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, backed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Republican candidates did not make vouchers a central plank of their platforms. Most left the issue off of their campaign websites, instead listing stances like “Standing with Public Schools” and “Increased Funding for Local Schools.”

Corpus Christi-area Republican Denise Villalobos pledged on her website that if elected she would “fight for increased funding for our teachers and local schools”; she did not emphasize her pro-voucher views. At least one ad paid for by the American Federation for Children’s affiliated PAC attacked her opponent, Democrat Solomon Ortiz Jr., not for his opposition to vouchers but for what it claimed were his “progressive open-border policies that flood our communities with violent crime and fentanyl.” (Villalobos defeated Ortiz by 10 points.)

Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said that this strategy reflects a belief among voucher advocates that compared to the border and culture wars, vouchers are not in fact a “slam-dunk winning issue.”

In the wake of Tuesday’s results in the presidential election, NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd said that Democrats had overlooked school choice as a policy that might be popular among working-class people, including Latinos, in places like Texas. But the concrete results of ballot initiatives around the nation show that it is in fact Trump, DeVos and other voucher proponents who are out of step with the American people on this particular issue.

They continue to advocate for vouchers, though, for multiple reasons: a sense that public schools are places where children develop liberal values, an ideological belief that the free market and private institutions can do things better and more efficiently than public ones, and a long-term goal of more religious education in this country.

And they know that popular sentiment can be and has been overridden by the efforts of powerful governors and moneyed interest groups, said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center who recently published a history of billionaire-led voucher efforts nationwide.

The Supreme Court could also aid the voucher movement in coming years, he said.

“They’re not going to stop,” Cowen said, “just because voters have rejected this.”

In a state with school vouchers for all, low-income families aren’t choosing to use them


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Series: School Wars:How Battles Over Vouchers, Book Bans, COVID-19 and More Are Harming Public Education

More in this series

Reporting Highlights

  • Not a Choice for Everyone: In Arizona, which now offers school vouchers to all students, lower-income families are using the program less than wealthier ones, a ProPublica analysis shows.
  • Barriers to Entry: Lower-income families said that the location of private schools and additional costs for things like transportation, tuition and meals keep them from using vouchers.
  • Sales Pitch: Advocates for vouchers have long argued their plan is a way for all children, no matter their socioeconomic background, to have access to a high-quality education.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

Alma Nuñez, a longtime South Phoenix restaurant cashier with three kids, attended a community event a few years ago at which a speaker gave a presentation about Arizona’s school voucher program. She was intrigued.

Angelica Zavala, a West Phoenix home cleaner and mother of two, first heard of vouchers when former Gov. Doug Ducey was talking about them on the news. He was saying that the state was giving parents money that they could then spend on private school tuition or homeschooling supplies. The goal was to ensure that all students, no matter their socioeconomic background, would have access to whatever kind of education best fit them. Zavala thought: This sounds great. Maybe it will benefit my family.

And Fabiola Velasquez, also a mother of three, was watching TV with her husband last year when she saw one of the many ads for vouchers that have blanketed media outlets across metropolitan Phoenix of late. She turned to him and asked, “Have you heard about this?”

Working-class parents like Nuñez, Zavala and Velasquez have often said in surveys and interviews that they’re at least initially interested in school vouchers, which in Arizona are called Empowerment Scholarship Accounts. Many across the Phoenix area told ProPublica that they liked the idea of getting some financial help from the state so that they could send their children to the best, safest private schools — the kind that rich kids get to attend.

Yet when it comes to lower-income families actually choosing to use vouchers here in the nation’s school choice capital, the numbers tell a very different story. A ProPublica analysis of Arizona Department of Education data for Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, reveals that the poorer the ZIP code, the less often vouchers are being used. The richer, the more.

In one West Phoenix ZIP code where the median household income is $46,700 a year, for example, ProPublica estimates that only a single voucher is being used per 100 school-age children. There are about 12,000 kids in this ZIP code, with only 150 receiving vouchers.

Conversely, in a Paradise Valley ZIP code with a median household income of $173,000, there are an estimated 28 vouchers being used per 100 school-age children.

The question is, if there’s interest in school vouchers among lower-income families, why isn’t that translating into use, as conservative advocates have long promised would happen?

In our interviews, several families said that they simply didn’t know about the program. Some mentioned that they didn’t have the social contacts — or the time, given their jobs — to investigate whether vouchers would be a better option for their kids than public school, which is generally simpler to enroll in and navigate.

But others, like Nuñez, Zavala and Velasquez, said that they knew plenty about Empowerment Scholarship Accounts. Still, they had come to understand that the ESA program was not designed for them, not in a day-to-day sense. Logistical obstacles would make using vouchers to attend private school practically impossible for them and their children.

It starts with geography. The high-quality private schools are not near their neighborhoods.

ProPublica compiled a list of more than 200 private schools in the Phoenix metro area using a survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, as well as a Maricopa County listing and other sources. We found that these schools are disproportionately located to the north and east of downtown — in Midtown, Arcadia, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley and the suburbs — rather than to the south and west, the historically segregated areas where Nuñez, Zavala and Velasquez live.

Only six of all of these private schools are in Census tracts where families earn less than 50% of the county’s median income of $87,000.

So even if lower-income families were able to secure spots at a decent private school and could use vouchers to pay the tuition, they would still have to figure out how to get their children there. After all, while public schools generally provide free transportation via school buses, private schools rarely do.

Would they send their kids on $30-plus Uber rides each way every day? Or on city bus trips that might take up to two hours in each direction, because the routes aren’t designed for students the way that school bus routes are? This might require their little ones to make multiple transfers, on their own, at busy intersections.

Zavala used an app that showed the private schools near her home; there weren’t many, but she did know of one, St. Matthew Catholic School, that served students her daughters’ age and was in the vicinity. It also had sports and a dual-language program, which not many private schools provide.

She filled out all the forms to apply for her daughters to attend St. Matthew using vouchers, before deciding that the stress of transportation — there wouldn’t be a school bus — wasn’t worth it. (Zavala also said she realized that the academics wouldn’t necessarily offer an improvement over public school.)

Then there’s tuition. Zavala, as well as Nuñez and Velasquez, learned that a voucher might not even cover the full price of a private school.

A typical voucher from Arizona’s ESA program is worth between $7,000 and $8,000 a year, while private schools in the Phoenix area often charge more than $10,000 annually in tuition and fees, ProPublica found. The price tag at Phoenix Country Day School, one of the best private schools around, ranges from $30,000 to $35,000 depending on the age of the student. (The Hechinger Report has also found that private schools often raise their tuition when parents have vouchers.)

“Just because you gave me a 50%-off coupon at Saks Fifth Avenue doesn’t mean I can afford to shop at Saks Fifth Avenue,” said Curt Cardine, a longtime school superintendent, principal and teacher who is now a fellow at the Grand Canyon Institute, a left-leaning public policy think tank in Phoenix.

Next add the cost of food: breakfast, lunch, afternoon snack. These are provided by public schools to students from lower-income families, but at private schools, parents typically have to pay for them.

And throw in a supply of uniforms with the private school’s logo — hundreds of dollars more.

Plus there is pressure to spend money at auctions, raffles and other fundraisers. (It’s Christian to do so, many religious private school websites say.)

Consider the choices available to Nuñez. For 17 years, she was a cashier at a restaurant, working 10 or more hours a day. Now she is raising three children, two of whom have autism. Private schools have some appeal to her in part because they might have smaller class sizes and more support for her son in third grade, whom she describes as “an earthquake.”

For all of these reasons, Nuñez, Zavala and Velasquez — despite their initial interest — chose not to use Arizona’s voucher program. Instead, they have each decided to start volunteering at the neighborhood public schools that their kids attend and to organize other busy parents to help make those schools better. They meet with their school administrators regularly. They lend a hand at drop-off and pick-up. They’ve organized “cafecitos”: an informal sort of PTA coffee hour.

“I’m committed to the idea of public school for my and my neighbors’ children,” Velasquez said. “I have zero regrets about not using ESA.”

This school year, ProPublica is examining Arizona’s first-in-the-nation “universal” school voucher program: available to all families, no matter their income. We are doing so because more than a dozen other states have enacted, or are attempting to enact, voucher initiatives largely or partly modeled after this one.

Arizona’s experience holds lessons for the rest of the country amid an election season in which the future of education is at stake, even as issues like immigration and inflation grab more headlines.

As they were initially conceived, school vouchers were targeted at helping families in lower-income areas. The first such programs, in cities like Milwaukee and Cleveland, provided money specifically to poor parents who had children in struggling, underfunded public schools, to help them pay tuition at a hopefully better private school.

Conservative advocacy groups still say that this is the purpose of vouchers. “School choice provides options for low-income families” by breaking “the arbitrary link between a child’s housing and the school he or she can attend,” the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with deep ties to former President Donald Trump, said in 2019. “At the core of the school choice movement is the aspiration that every family obtain the freedom to pursue educational excellence for their children — regardless of their geographic location or socioeconomic background,” the Goldwater Institute, the Phoenix-based conservative think tank that pioneered and helped enact Arizona’s ESA law, has asserted.

But now that groups like these have successfully pushed for vouchers to be made universal in several states, the programs are disproportionately being used by middle- and upper-income parents.

“Arizona is the school choice capital of the U.S. — great, but if it’s not quality schools within a reasonable distance, then it’s not meaningful choice for our families,” said Stephanie Parra, CEO of ALL In Education, a pro-public-education Latino advocacy group that Nuñez, Zavala and Velasquez have been working with.

Michael J. Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a pro-charter-school and school voucher education reform think tank, told ProPublica that Arizona’s version of vouchers “is not well-designed to achieve the goal of providing more choice for low-income and working-class families.” He said that “if you were going to design a program that really wanted to unlock private school choice for those families, you would design it very differently than Arizona did.”

Petrilli said that this would at least include means-testing the program: in other words, making larger vouchers available to lower-income parents, rather than giving the same amount to the very wealthy, who do not need the help. (Some states with near-universal voucher programs, he noted, give priority to lower-income families, unlike Arizona.) This would help poor parents cover the cost of transportation, among other things.

Arizona’s program does allow parents to use their ESA money on transportation costs, but those who’ve already spent their voucher on tuition don’t have anything left for a year’s worth of Uber rides, city bus fares or gas. ESAs can also be used for homeschooling supplies, but most working parents can’t homeschool.

Some private schools provide additional scholarships or financial aid to students from lower-income backgrounds, though the process can be complicated to navigate. In some instances, ProPublica found, private school application systems even require a nonrefundable fee to apply for need-based aid.

Advocates for vouchers argue that many of these inequities already exist and are just as bad in the public school system. They note that poor families are often practically limited to the public schools nearest to them; it’s not as though the government provides transportation if parents want to send their kids to a better public school across town. (At least not since the end of the desegregation-era practice of busing Black children to mostly white schools. Busing helped to desegregate the public schools and improved academic outcomes for Black students, but it was broadly unpopular.)

Michael McShane, director of national research for the pro-voucher advocacy and research organization EdChoice, said that it’s still “early days” for universal programs like Arizona’s, and that “there is an adoption curve anytime any new innovation takes place.”

Asked why these efforts haven’t yet clearly helped lower-income families, McShane said that the “first movers” in a newly reformed system “tend to be more risk-takers, which sort of comes with affluence.” For lower-income parents whose children have long just been assigned to a public school, he said, school choice is “a muscle that has to be learned.”

He acknowledged, though, that more still needs to be done to help students from less-affluent areas access private schools, especially in a sprawling state like Arizona. This could include providing larger vouchers based on students’ socioeconomic circumstances as well as working on the “supply side” of the system — developing new private schools in places where there aren’t many.

But the question remains whether quality private schools, interested in making a profit, will have any reason to build new locations in South or West Phoenix, where most parents can’t pay tuition beyond their $7,000 voucher. So far, in these areas of the city, the free market has mostly just provided strip-mall, storefront private schools as well as what are called microschools, with little on their websites that working parents can use to judge their curricula, quality or cost. (Private schools in Arizona aren’t obligated to make public any information about their performance.)

These schools might not be accredited. Their teachers might not be certified. They might close soon. They are certainly not the large, established, elite private schools of the American imagination.

While lower-income families are struggling to access or even learn about ways to use vouchers, wealthier parents enjoy a smoother path.

Affluent parents in the Phoenix area whose kids were already attending private school, for example, told ProPublica that they are now being sent webinars and other emailed advice — from the private school administrators to whom they are already paying tuition — on how to apply for vouchers to subsidize that tuition.

Erin Rotheram-Fuller, a mom in South Scottsdale who is sending her daughter to a private school using the ESA program, is also an Arizona State University associate professor of education. She said that the program has largely worked for her family, in part because she lives in an upper-middle-class area and there are quality schools serving her daughter’s needs that are relatively nearby. Moreover, she has been able to rely on word of mouth and help from her social circle, asking other ESA parents for advice about navigating logistical issues, like which documents to submit during the application process.

“As a parent, I’m grateful for it,” Rotheram-Fuller said of the program. “But there are several layers of barriers.”

“Parents near us can make so many more choices than other families who really need it,” she said.

The moms in South Phoenix agree.

Zavala said that another reason that she didn’t ultimately submit those forms to send her daughters to private school using vouchers was that what she could provide materially was less than what she predicted the other kids at the private school would have. She worried that her little girls, if not equipped with the latest cellphone, laptop and other indicators of wealth, would feel left out or be bullied.

Velasquez, meanwhile, wondered if she would be received in the same way at a private school as she is as a public school parent leader.

“Yes, there might be a nicer playground and basketball court, but would I be able to advocate for them?” she asked, referring to her children.

Dani Portillo, superintendent of the Roosevelt School District in South Phoenix, which these three mothers all send their children to, told ProPublica that ultimately “parents will speak by choosing our schools.” She said, “The idea that if they don’t go to a private school, they’re not giving their child the best — no, that’s false.”

These parents made a clear school choice of their own, Nuñez, Zavala and Velasquez said: to say no to vouchers.

Mollie Simon contributed research.

'The state is not God': DeSantis paid educators to teach 'Christian nationalism' report says

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis last year recruited thousands of public school teachers and paid them thousands of dollars out of taxpayer funds to attend training on teaching what he called “civics,” but a report states the program focused on “the tenets of Christian nationalism,” and included at least one quote from the Christian bible.

“Training materials produced by the Florida Department of Education direct middle and high school teachers to indoctrinate students in the tenets of Christian nationalism, a right-wing effort to merge Christian and American identities,” Popular Information founder Judd Legum revealed in his exclusive report Tuesday.

“A three-day training course on civic education, conducted throughout Florida in the summer of 2023, included a presentation on the ‘Influences of the Judeo-Christian Tradition’ on the founding of the United States,” Legum writes. “According to speaker notes accompanying one slide, teachers were told that ‘Christianity challenged the notion that religion should be subservient to the goals of the state,’ and the same hierarchy is reflected in America’s founding documents. That slide quotes the Bible to assert that ‘[c]ivil government must be respected, but the state is not God.’ Teachers were told the same principle is embedded in the Declaration of Independence.”

Legum included a screenshot from the training that bears the logos of the Florida Department of Education and DeSantis’ “Civics Literacy Excellence Initiative.”

READ MORE: Supreme Court ‘Puppetmaster’ Slammed Over Report He’s Flying Alito’s ‘Theocratic’ Flag Again

It reads in part: “‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ Matthew 22:21.”

“The next slide in the deck,” Legum continues, “quotes an article by Peter Lillback, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary and the founder of The Providence Forum, an organization that promotes and defends Christian nationalism. The group’s executive director, Jerry Newcombe, writes a weekly column for World Net Daily— a far-right site known for publishing hundreds of stories falsely suggesting Obama was a Muslim born in Africa.”

That slide “argues that there would be no freedom, no republic, and no constitution without religion. The speaker notes accompanying the slide emphasize that ‘the separation of Church and State did not mean the separation of God and government,’ and all the founders were ‘steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.'”

In a March of 2023 press release, DeSantis’s office trumpeted: “Today, Governor Ron DeSantis highlighted Florida’s continued commitment to expanding civics education in Florida schools and announced that the first 4,500 teachers have completed the Civics Seal of Excellence endorsement course and will receive a $3,000 bonus.”

The statement claimed the course was “at capacity with 20,000 teachers making their commitment to civics education, and there are additional 14,000 teachers on the waiting list for this first of a kind civics teacher professional development program.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Bronx Rally Attendance Claim Fuels Mockery as Aerial Images Show a Different Story

It also pointed to a 2022 program, saying “Florida’s Civic Literacy Excellence Initiative also included a three-day Civics Excellence teacher training course in the summer of 2022 for teachers to increase their knowledge of civics in addition to the creation of supplemental materials for civics lessons including the Civics Reading List and the Portraits of Patriotism video series to further student interaction with civics.”

Some teachers called that 2022 program’s teachings “cherry-picked,” NBC News (video below) reported at the time. Others were “shocked to learn what they were expected to teach their students.”

“They told us what to think and what our opinions were,” one teacher told NBC News, calling it “very unsettling.”

One slide in that program NBC News reported claimed it is a “misconception” that “The Founders desired strict separation of church and state and the Founders only wanted to protect freedom of worship.”

In 2022 The Washington Post reported, “New civics training for Florida public school teachers comes with a dose of Christian dogma, some teachers say, and they worry that it also sanitizes history and promotes inaccuracies.”

Watch that NBC News video below or at this link.

@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.