On December 8, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Carson v. Makin, brought by families objecting to the fact that Maine's school choice program excludes religious schools. In Maine, state law authorizes school districts that do not operate their own high schools to provide tuition payments allowing families to select the private school of their choice, as long as the private school is not religious.

The case represents a sequel of sorts to last year's landmark Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, in which the Court ruled that religious schools cannot be excluded from school choice programs open to secular private schools. In September 2021, CAPE partnered with other concerned organizations to submit an amicus brief arguing that by discriminating against religious schools, Maine's law is unconstitutional.

You can read a SCOTUSblog overview of oral arguments here. A decision is expected by summer.

School choice advocates know that the number one canard deployed in state capitals against vouchers, tax credit scholarships, and education savings accounts is that they "take money from the public schools." Now, Martin Lueken with EdChoice has released a report providing further evidence that choice programs can and do actually save states money. Titled "Fiscal Effects of School Choice: Analyzing the costs and savings of private school choice programs in America," the report finds that:

How is this possible? As Mike McShane explains in Forbes, "In general, private school choice programs are funded at a per-pupil amount less than what traditional public schools spend. That means every child that participates in the program costs the state less than if they stayed in public school. If, for example, a state would otherwise spend $10,000 on a student in a given year but instead they participate in a voucher program that is worth $6,000 per year, that student saves the state $4,000."

From the New York Times:

"New York City will require employees at yeshivas, Catholic schools and other private schools to be vaccinated against the coronavirus...

"The new directive...is expected to affect roughly 930 schools and 56,000 employees, city officials said...Students are not required to be vaccinated.

"A handful of states have already required private school workers to be vaccinated: California was the first state to issue a vaccine mandate for all teachers, covering public and private schools, but allowed a weekly testing option. Washington followed days later; its mandate offered no testing option, but allowed for religious or medical exemptions.

"The decision to include religious schools and not allow religious exemptions faced immediate opposition from some Jewish and Catholic leaders, who sent a letter to Mr. de Blasio on Thursday urging him to reconsider.

"'This is an area where government should be using its bully pulpit to persuade, not its regulatory arm to coerce,' said the letter from Rabbi David Zwiebel, the chairman of a group that represents religious and independent school leaders."

According to a Department of Agriculture release, the Biden Administration will be providing "up to $1.5 billion to states and school districts to help school meal program operators deal with the challenges of supply chain disruptions brought on by the pandemic."

"With funding made available through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA will provide $1 billion for schools to purchase food for their meal programs and another $300 million for states to purchase foods to be distributed to schools. An additional $200 million will be used for cooperative agreements to purchase local foods for schools with a focus on buying from historically underserved producers."

The release says that nonprofit private schools are eligible for the $1 billion in Supply Chain Assistance funds.

A federal court has ruled that Maryland violated the First Amendment rights of Bethel Christian Academy when it excluded its students from a taxpayer-funded voucher program. The school sued after being ejected from the state's voucher program, which occurred because the school's handbook contained language on marriage and sexuality that the state determined to be discriminatory.

On December 10, US District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher sided with the school, ruling that "the Defendants have failed to put forth any evidence that Bethel’s policy has deterred a single prospective applicant from applying for admission at Bethel, let alone any evidence that Bethel has ever denied admission, expelled, or disciplined a student on the basis of sexual orientation."

She continued, "Bethel was not excluded from the BOOST program because it rejected any applicant on the basis of sexual orientation; or because it disciplined or expelled any student on that basis; or because it engaged in any other discriminatory conduct or behaved any differently than any other BOOST-participating school. Instead, Bethel was expelled from the program because it refused to change the admissions policy section of its handbook to reflect the views that the government wanted it to express. Put simply, Defendants did not demand that Bethel act differently to remain BOOST-eligible, they demanded that Bethel speak differently."

The state had also demanded that the school pay back $102,000 for its previous participation in the program, a requirement Judge Gallagher also overturned.