NN4DA Working Group on Policy and Legal Developments: Monthly Call Agenda
The next call of the NN4DA Working Group on Policy and Legal Developments is Friday, March 6, 2026, from 1:00 to 2:00 pm MST.
Register for the zoom call here
We will be discussing two issues:
1.New proposals for religious charter schools that are likely to make it through the courts;
2.Lessons about virtual charter schools and financial fraud from California that may be useful in other states.
Details and materials on each topic are explained below.
Courts Likely to Address Religion in Charters and Public Education: Round 2
A year ago, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a virtual Catholic charter school in Oklahoma with an inconclusive a 4-to-4 tie. At the time, observers expected new proposals for religious charter schools, designed to trigger a new round of test cases, to quickly reemerge. They were right.
Given that the missing 9th justice from the first case was Amy Coney Barrett, who has advocated for religion in public schooling prior to joining the court, the full court could eventually approve religious charter schools and expand the role of religion in public education more broadly.
Several religious public schools and proposals are moving forward. New litigation reaching the SCOTUS sometime in the future appears to be a foregone conclusion. Notably, one of the new cases is not a charter school. A religious Colorado “contract school” has already opened.
Charter school authorizers should probably track this issue, and we may want to begin thinking about the implications of such a major change in the sector.
Below is a quick rundown on some of the cases percolating in states. There are probably other cases that we are not yet aware of.
1.National articles on the multiple issues in various states: The big picture is described in Chalkbeat and in Education Week.
2.Colorado’s Christian public Contract School: See the website for the Riverstone school, and an article on its launch in Chalkbeat.
3.Tennessee proposal for a religious charter school: Read about the Tennessee case in Chalkbeat from Knox County Schools here, and the Tennessee Attorney General opinion finding that the state’s prohibition on such schools is likely unconstitutional.
4.Oklahoma state authorizer rejects a Jewish charter school, and litigation expected: Read about the case in the Jewish Telegraph Agency article.
5.Religious material in public schools: There are also policies and controversies over the posting of religious materials in public schools in Tennessee and Texas, as well as a potential referred ballot measure protecting religious expression in Florida. Texas approved a bible-infused curriculum that some parents are opting out of.
California’s experience with virtual education (and serious cases of financial fraud) offers lessons for other states
California’s charter sector has always had a substantial virtual/on-line/cyber school component. In recent years, the state has experienced some extremely expensive cases of financial fraud, which illustrated some structural weaknesses in state policies and oversight, as well as problematic aspects of charter school authorizing.
California Charter Authorizing Professionals (CCAP) has been deeply involved in follow-up activity, including by convening a CCAP Anti-Fraud Task Force to explore fraud in these cases, and producing with NN4DA a major research project to explore authorizing policy, funding, and practices related to virtual schools. Policymakers in California have been developing major legislation that could address many of the issues that CCAP has raised.
While every state charter sector is different, there are is a lot that is common across states. As various forms of school choice expand, many states are experiencing an increase in virtual education options, including full-time and part-time virtual schools, home school enrichment programs, and a growing number of vendors offering online services. In some states, small district authorizers operate large virtual schools that may generate financial incentives. Authorizers also face issues with complicated governance structures, confused student counts, ambiguous obligations for schools and services under various state programs, and weak audits or failure to follow-up when financial irregularities emerge.
CCAP has thought about many of these issues, and their observations may be helpful to authorizers, system leaders, and policy makers in other states.
Please join us to discuss these important policy and legal developments,
Alex Medler & Tom Hutton