This commentary is by Ken Fredette, a resident of Wallingford.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a hard right turn in recent times, offering questionable opinions on matters near and dear to all Americans, right-leaning or left, from what this nation’s founders actually had in mind with the right to bear arms, to the previously considered “settled law” of a woman’s right to health care, to taking a wrecking ball to the wall of separation between church and state.
Perhaps worth noting is how the balance of the justice scale came to be tipped so far to one side: March 2016 was deemed too close to a presidential election to appoint — or even consider — Merrick Garland, but 38 days was plenty of time to confirm Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.
Given that, Brett Kavanaugh could be considered the only legitimate Supreme Court justice appointed during the previous administration. Let that sink in for a moment.
The Vermont Legislature now faces the daunting task of balancing the recent Supreme Court ruling that, if a state sends tax dollars to any private schools, it cannot exclude religious schools, with the Compelled Support Clause of the Vermont Constitution.
One proposed resolution is to designate four independent schools as public, and then decree tax dollars can be used only for public schools. The headmaster of one of the four schools has already declared they will never agree to being designated a public school. This is the same man who, in 2011, compared changes being proposed to rules governing independent schools — like accepting all students regardless of special needs — as being forced to weigh his race horse down with a 100-pound sandbag to make it fair for all the slower horses (public schools) in the race. I responded that I suspected he didn’t mind weighing his horse down with saddlebags full of tax dollars.
Then there is a prominent member of the Vermont House who has always been an outspoken supporter of independent schools, sometimes openly bashing public schools in the process, who is an employee of one of the four schools. These two men have made it clear that they will push back against any change to their status quo — like receiving public funds but not having to publicly disclose how they are used — instead of taking this opportunity to improve a well-established system even further for the best interests of all Vermont students and taxpayers. Perhaps down the road.
While I see the “four school” proposal as an honest attempt at avoiding the all-or-nothing scenario that’s been thrust upon us from above, I’m not a big fan. In my neck of the woods, we have the Long Trail School, which I know does a remarkable job for students, and there are no doubt many others that do the same beyond the Big Four; it would be a shame to stop supporting the smaller independents that have good track records of filling important needs of our children.
So, how to solve this conundrum? Here are a few thoughts:
1) If religious schools can use tax dollars, then churches need to pay taxes.
I quit gambling when I was in college, after recognizing that I wouldn’t quit when I was winning — for obvious reasons — and I wouldn’t quit when I was losing, hoping to regain lost ground. A dangerous combination, but fortunately I recognized it before I’d traveled too far down the bumpy road to adulthood.
One thing I remember from those days, though, is if one wanted to participate, one had to ante up.
2) Eliminate the carve-out in Vermont statutes that allows religious schools to discriminate when hiring.
After Sunday worship service years ago, I was approached by the pastor and other church leaders about ensuring only heterosexuals would be hired at our local school, because I was chair of that school board at the time. I responded that would be against the law, to which the pastor replied, “God’s law prevails!” I then pointed out that he once said we are subject to man’s law while on Earth, and God’s judgment comes later.
3) Forget about trying to legislate that tax dollars are not to be used for religious education.
These dollars are fungible, so a religious school could say they would use tax dollars to teach geology … oh, bad example; biology … nope; sex education … hard no; mathematics … OK, there’s one God probably doesn’t have an issue with, in these schools’ opinion. But 50 tax dollars for math frees up 50 dollars to be used to teach the Earth was formed in six days.
4) Following that, how about simply pro-rating financial support based upon student contact time with religion in the classroom?
Perhaps difficult to monitor, but no more so than what subjects are being discussed. And it’s a whole lot cleaner, as it eliminates the concern with fungibility. For example, if a religious school’s administration pledges that only three hours of an eight-hour day are devoted to religious instruction, then that school would be eligible to receive 5/8ths of the established statewide tuition rate. Simple.
In the case of a prominent Christian school that recently came under scrutiny for refusing to have their sports team play against another school that had a transgender athlete, their website reportedly says: “The Word of God is integrated into each classroom and each subject,” so that school would be eligible for zero tax dollars. Even simpler.
This is all about what’s best for kids, and taxpayers, and I wish our legislators well sorting it all out.