A growing national movement is challenging the long-standing principle of separating church and state in public education, igniting debates across the country—including here in Illinois.
Recent actions by state officials, federal leaders and the U.S. Supreme Court have raised concerns about the future of religious neutrality in public schools.
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating a pivotal case involving St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma, which seeks to become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The Court’s decision could redefine the boundaries between public education and religious instruction.
According to the National Education Association, a ruling in favor of St. Isidore may compel states to fund religious charter schools, potentially altering the landscape of public education nationwide.
Social studies teacher Jane Hicks provided historical context and insight into the legal frameworks at play.
“There’s always been this idea of ‘technically, kids go to school in that area and their parents are already paying taxes,’” she said. “So, there’s a little bit of wiggle room in the Supreme Court sometimes when it comes to letting parochial schools get access to tax dollars.”
On National Prayer Day, May 1, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a presidential commission on religious liberty. Chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the commission aims to promote religious values within public institutions.
Critics from public schools nationwide and, most notably, the NEA argue that this move undermines the constitutional separation of church and state, while supporters view it as a reaffirmation of religious freedom.
Oklahoma has become a focal point in this national discussion. State Superintendent Ryan Walters has mandated the inclusion of Bibles in every classroom and established the Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism to oversee religious initiatives in schools. These actions have sparked legal challenges and raised questions about the role of religion in public education.
Senior Libby Strahm questioned the morality of a nationwide change in dissolving the separation of church and state.
“Even though our nation was founded on religious ideals, I don’t think it’s OK to force religion on people who don’t want to be religious,” she said. “Public schools are open for everyone. Centering the entire school on one religion won’t include everyone.”
Strahm also argued that the case contradicts parts of the constitution. According to the Free Speech Center, the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause has traditionally been interpreted to prohibit government endorsement of religion in public schools. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), have reinforced this separation by ruling school-sponsored Bible readings unconstitutional.
However, recent legal trends suggest a shift. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Supreme Court held that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from a tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause, signaling a potential reevaluation of church-state boundaries in education.
While Illinois has not enacted similar measures, the national momentum could influence local policies. Educators, parents and students in Illinois are closely monitoring these developments, aware that decisions made at the federal level may impact state education systems.
At Edwardsville High School, students are watching the national conversation unfold with a mix of caution, curiosity and concern.
“I think that religion is really important for a lot of people and it keeps their life structured,” senior Olivia Swarthout said. “It all really needs to be kept separate because there are so many different religions and beliefs. Involving [religion] in school would separate kids based on their beliefs.”
Swarthout also expressed worry about how religion is often taught.
“In my experiences, religion has been taught in a way that says other religions aren’t correct in what they believe,” she said. “So, if that were to impact our school, I think it’d cause a real problem for students.”
Senior Charlie Kurzym voiced concerns about the legal and cultural precedent these shifts could create. “They’re challenging the separation of church and state in public schools,” he said. “That’s kind of what indoctrination is.”
Kurzym added, “It feels like even just a couple years ago, this discussion wouldn’t have been had. It’s upsetting because it’s going directly against the Constitution.” Still, he noted, “Unless there’s a federal mandate to include religious teachings in public schools, I don’t think it will affect Edwardsville.”
Junior Lily McGarvey said she isn’t sure how much such a change would impact her day-to-day life, but she questioned its fairness. “I don’t think it should be mandatory,” she said. “If it happened here, I don’t think it would really affect me, but I don’t think it’d be fair for everyone.”
McGarvey added that politics may be driving much of the national conversation. “I feel like this could’ve happened under other presidencies, and I think a lot of the argument has to do with the court case starting in Oklahoma because they’re more red,” she said.
Ms. Hicks explained how precedent usually guides the Supreme Court’s decisions.
“The ideal that the Supreme Court has had over the years is that once a case is decided, they make that the precedent,” she said. “In order to try and keep society orderly, the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn past cases very often because that would go against the precedent.”
But she also noted the current Court has shown a willingness to reverse precedent. “In our Supreme Court right now, even though they said repeatedly in their Senate interviews that they believe in the concept of precedents, it looks like they’re more likely to turn some things over,” she said.
“There are two things that might happen in this situation,” Ms. Hicks said. “A, we have a Supreme Court overturning cases, or B, we might see some states start funding religious schools and the court says that’s illegal but does nothing—because the Supreme Court famously doesn’t have an army.”
As students and educators across the country wait for the Court’s decision, the national debate over religion in public schools remains deeply polarized. For some, it’s about tradition and freedom of expression. For others, it’s about fairness, inclusion and the role of government in religious life.
“I think we could all have totally different beliefs,” Swarthout said, “and some people aren’t even religious at all. That’d be a really interesting and problematic change.”