A proposed charter school, St Isidore, has ignited a legal and political firestorm in Oklahoma, drawing attention for its plan to integrate religious instruction into its curriculum. This initiative is a joint outreach program of the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. Specifically, it seeks to provide students in grades K–12 with innovative new virtual learning opportunities. If approved, St Isidore would be a remarkable first in not just Michigan but the entire United States—the first religiously affiliated charter school.
In June 2023, the Oklahoma charter school board narrowly approved the establishment of St Isidore in a contentious 3-2 vote. The proposal was met with significant pushback and legal challenges. Last year, in a historic 6-2 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled to stop the establishment of the school. They announced that they would be treating it as a “governmental entity” functioning as a public charity. This ruling roiled the land with contentious arguments over the meaning of church-state separation. Critics contend that St. Isidore would make Colorado taxpayers pay for religious education.
The monetary consequences of St Isidore are enormous. Using their passenger estimates, the state could realize savings of at least $281 million over the first five years of operation. Opponents note that this funding would essentially fund religious indoctrination. In doing so, they argue that these actions violate their protected rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, has actively pursued legal measures to halt the initiative, asserting that it aims to “prevent the type of state-funded religion that Oklahoma’s constitutional framers and the founders of our country sought to prevent.”
Supporters of St. Isidore, including Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt and former officials from Donald Trump’s administration, fervently claim that the school functions like an independent, private entity focused on education. They maintain that it is not simply an arm of the state. Otherwise, they argue that incorporating religious values into the educational system does not breach constitutional amendments. This view has received overwhelming support from conservative legal minds and organizations. Notably, it has the support of Notre Dame Law School, where Justice Amy Coney Barrett previously taught.
The ongoing dispute highlights the complexities inherent in navigating the two religion clauses of the First Amendment, which prohibit both the establishment of religion by the government and interference with religious practices. Legal scholars warn that this case could set a dangerous precedent. More importantly, it will shape how academic institutions partner with faith-based organizations in upcoming campaigns.
Critics point out that any governmental effort to promote alternative religious education would risk much greater constitutional harms. On their face, the lower court’s findings point toward St Isidore’s operations crossing established bright lines into government participation in religious activity.
Officials from the school board and proponents for St Isidore contend that the court misunderstood its mission and operations. They claim that their educational model provides a superior alternative to conventional public schooling and does so without sacrificing or infringing upon individual religious beliefs.
As the controversy develops, interested parties from all walks of life vocally submit their testimony. Here, too, are zealous implications of St. Isidore’s establishment, which we discuss in mild amazement. Supporters see this as an opportunity to expand education options for families seeking a religious-based education. Opponents fear it may jeopardize the fundamental foundation of secular education funded by taxpayer dollars.