by Erica Kuhlmann ’22

The Supreme Court heard arguments on January 29 for Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, a case that could potentially change the American public school system for the worse. The state constitution of Montana has long prohibited the allocation of taxpayer money to fund private religious schools. However, in 2015, the Montana legislature passed a bill that would allow tax credits for families who choose to send their children to religious schools. The Montana Department of Revenue established a rule that blocked this program, and some families who could not receive tax credits sued. A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the income taxes a person owes, which is subtracted from their actual tax bill.

The case raises obvious concerns of the separation of church and state, but it also brings with it some other important issues. Private schools are significantly unregulated compared to public schools. The curriculum in public schools is highly vetted by the county and state they are in, as well as carefully screening teachers and other faculty. Taxpayer money goes towards public schools with the promise that they will provide good quality and unbiased education, which cannot be guaranteed by private institutions and is not required to be. If public money goes towards private schools, there is no certainty it is going towards good education, and taxpayers do not know what their money is being used for.

Public schools must also follow constitutional non-discrimination laws that ensure every child has access to education. In most states, private schools (more often religious ones) are permitted to discriminate against LGBT students and staff and continue to receive federal funding or be tax-exempt, and many private schools may be unable to accommodate students with disabilities. Religious private schools that are aided or partially funded by the government and are immune to discrimination laws applied to public facilities are unconstitutional. In 2019 a bill was passed that required Maryland private schools receiving public funding to follow the same non-discrimination laws as public schools, and allowed cases of discrimination in private schools to be brought to the state’s Commission on Civil Rights. Maryland Matters reported that the Maryland Senate “maintained language that … scholarships can only go to children enrolling in schools that comply with nondiscrimination language.” While Maryland has addressed this issue, most states do not have a law like this.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Espinoza, it would negatively affect anyone who does not want to attend a private religious school. In a statement by the American Federation of Teachers, president Randi Weingarten says that “if this decision goes in a certain way it will be a virtual earthquake in terms of religious liberty and public education in this country,” as it would “undermine public financing of public education.” Funding for private schools would likely require either an increase in taxes for other taxpayers or a decrease in funding for public schools in order to accomodate for money being given to private establishments rather than the government.

Public school is paid for by taxpayers because it is a public service the government provides for those who choose to take advantage of it. People who do not ride the bus still have to pay taxes for public transport, because it is there for them to use if they choose to and has the potential to benefit everyone. Private religious education only benefits a select few, and therefore does not fit with the purpose of public funding.