There will be plenty of hand-wringing over a move this month by Mississippi’s state government to allow students to offer their own prayers at traditional district school events. Activists against school prayer such as Joe Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State proclaim the measure is just another in the wave of “corrosive religious legislation” that forces kids to be exposed to proselytizing that goes against their own religious views — even though the hoops involved in districts administering such activity would almost inevitably discourage anyone from doing so. Meanwhile social conservatives are already proclaiming that the Mississippi school prayer measure is a victory for restoring religious values in school at a time in which districts are in their views seemingly hostile to any religious worldview — without considering that the Mississippi measure is written in such a way that districts would have to allow prayers by kids of faiths many of them oppose, including Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, and Ethical Culture.
Yet in stirring up the latest of many episodes over the role of prayer in schools, the Mississippi law serves as another reminder of why it is time to redefine American public education: Traditional districts are just not equipped to provide both the academic and moral education that families seek and rightly believe isn’t separate from one another. Just as importantly, by moving away from the traditional district model to a system of financing high-quality school opportunities be they traditional, charter, private, or parochial, American public education can also play a more-powerful role in fostering the kind of tolerance and mutual respect for differences that is at the heart of American society itself.
Certainly one can easily understand the concerns over the Mississippi school prayer law and similar efforts in other states. During the early 19th century, children of Catholic, Jewish, and non-Calvinist Protestant backgrounds were forced to read verses from the King James Bible at the beginning of the school day. By the mid 1800s, that Calvinism was ditched for a Unitarian-tinged civic religion favored by Horace Mann and his acolytes that was geared in part toward squelching what they thought would be Papist-inspired rebellion by Irish emigres. As the nation entered the mid-20th century, the battle by Jehovah’s Witnesses to stop their kids from being forced to recite a Pledge of Allegiance to the United States they considered to be idolatry, proved once again that only one religious viewpoint would be tolerated in traditional public schools, The legacy of this bigotry, including Blaine Amendments that banned the use of public school dollars for financing Catholic and other parochial schools that remain in place, is more than enough for one to be more than a bit wary of any state role in promoting school prayer.
From the perspective of those generally skeptical of any religious involvement in education, especially atheists and church-state separatists, keeping all forms of religion out of schools is the best solution. By doing so, in their views, it allows for kids to embrace diversity and pluralism while also building common bonds of citizenship that have nothing to do with religion. Yet in the process of advocating such moves — including bans on Nativity scenes and other religious symbolism — they have imposed their own agnostic form of religious worldview. By doing this, they fail to realize that for most families, especially those who are Baptist, Catholic, and Muslim, there is far less concern about the presence of religion in schools than with the exclusion of (and disrespect toward) their own. They don’t want the absence of any religion, just not one religion being more dominant than the other. Just as importantly, letting religion in is actually key to stemming bigotry against various faiths. It is important for kids to learn about the various faiths that are part of the fabric of this religiously pluralistic nation, as well as understand how to respect (and respectfully disagree with) worldviews different than their own.
Keeping religion out of traditional districts — even as a more – agnostic brand of civic religion becomes the de facto worldview of American public education — actually perpetuates even more religious bigotry because it treats faith as a poisonous to the instruction schools are supposed to do. This isn’t so. The development of morals and character is as much at the heart of education as algebra and reading comprehension, and this is something at which religion plays an important role. Certainly religion has at times been used irresponsibly by others to justify misbehavior. But to paraphrase Camille Paglia, the noted art critic and atheist, religion is the key civilizing force in world history. The very heart of civilization — from the Golden Rule to the very concept of forgiveness — is derived from religious precepts that folks such as I believe God laid down. At the same time, religion — especially Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant forms of Christianity — have and continue to play important roles in shaping art and literature. From architectural gems such as the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, to such works of art as Michelangelo’s David, knowledge about religion is key to children fully understanding the world around them. Schools cannot leave out religion without leaving out critical knowledge needed for lifelong success.
Yet there is nothing surprising about the struggle traditional districts have with religion. For most of its history, American public education was always more about inculcating a civic religion that focused on citizen and common ties, than about accepting diversity and pluralism. But these days, traditional districts are terrible at all four. Traditional district schools remain bastions of forced segregation thanks to zoned school rules and other Zip Code Education policies that restrict choice; battles over school prayer and other issues have also made traditional schools less able to promote either diversity or citizenship. As with the other troubles of traditional districts, the very scale and need to be all things to everyone is a key reason why they do so poorly in fostering both common bonds and encouraging the embrace of pluralism. That four out of every five children are stuck attending traditional district schools that cannot cater to their academic and moral needs (as well as help them embrace diversity or common bonds) is also part of the problem.
This is one more reason why expanding school choice and Parent Power matters. As it turns out, the schools that turn out to be the most-socially and economically diverse — and the ones most-likely to foster active and passive citizenship — are parochial and charter schools. As Jack Buckley (now commissioner of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics) and State University of New York at Stony Brook professor Mark Schneider pointed out in a 2004 study, research has shown that Catholic schools are particularly successful at fostering citizenship, while charter school students are more-active in community activism (and are as tolerant of others) as traditional district counterparts. This was proven a few years later by Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas in his own meta-analysis of 21 studies several years later.
This should be no surprise. Although Catholic schools began to form in earnest during the 1850s in order to help Catholic children avoid religious bigotry in traditional public schools, they have also been the de facto alternative schools of choice for children of all backgrounds (including poor black children in the nation’s big cities) since 1829 when Mother Mary Lange cofounded the Oblate Sisters of Providence in Baltimore. Charter schools such as Cesar Chavez in Washington, D.C., and the Democracy Prep collection of schools, have also proven to be good at fostering strong racial and ethnic pride (by allowing black and Latino children to see successful peers and role models) as well as bolstering citizenship and democracy. What many parents have figured out a long time ago is that at its best, religious and character instruction not only provides students with the hope and the moral education they need to avoid falling into poverty and prison, it also helps them behave better toward their fellow people. The lessons of self-sacrifice, delayed gratification and the Golden Rule are almost as critical to surviving in life as algebra and reading. Contrary to the arguments of traditionalists, school choice is far more critical to fostering diversity and citizenship — all key aspects of democratic republics — than traditional districts can ever be.
None of this should be a surprise. As seen in the Netherlands and Belgium, religious feuding ceased by World War I after governments in both countries decided to finance parochial school options. Based on the experiences in those countries, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that choice fosters both diversity and strong common bonds. When a system of education moves from being one of bureaucracies that restrict access to high-quality academics and eschews pluralism to a system of publicly financing high-quality learning and religious knowledge, children, families, communities, and the nation as a whole benefit. Simply put, it’s time to move past arguments over allowing school prayer — and time to embrace choice that respects diversity and promotes citizenship instead.
JOHN KLINE 
James