Mid Vermont Christian School challenges Vermont’s education reform law in federal court – VTDigger

Legal Challenge to Vermont Education Law Cites Discriminatory Practices Affecting Educational Access and Institutional Fairness

Introduction: Intersection of Education Policy and Sustainable Development Goals

A legal challenge has been initiated by the Mid Vermont Christian School against Vermont’s education reform law, Act 73. The lawsuit alleges that the legislation creates discriminatory barriers to public funding, thereby impacting several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Background of the Dispute: A Conflict of Rights and Inclusivity

The current legal motion is an extension of a pre-existing lawsuit filed in 2023. The initial case emerged from a conflict directly related to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• The school was initially barred from state athletics after forfeiting a game against a team that included a transgender athlete.
• This action raised significant questions regarding non-discriminatory policies and the promotion of inclusive environments in educational and extracurricular activities.
• While a federal appeals court ruled in the school’s favor regarding athletic participation, the case was returned to the lower court, where this new challenge to state education law has been introduced.

Analysis of Act 73: Implications for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The core of the new challenge is Act 73, a law that redefines the eligibility of independent schools to receive public tuition funds. This has direct consequences for achieving SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

1. New Eligibility Requirements: To qualify for public funding, private schools must now meet specific criteria:
   • Be located in a school district that does not operate its own public school for certain grades.
   • Demonstrate that at least 25% of their 2023-24 student body was funded by a Vermont public school district.
2. Impact on Educational Access: The implementation of these requirements has resulted in the exclusion of religious schools from the state’s public tuition system. This shift alters the landscape of educational choice for families in districts without public schools, potentially limiting access to certain types of education and undermining the principle of equitable educational opportunities central to SDG 4.

Plaintiff’s Arguments: A Challenge to SDG 10 and SDG 16

The Mid Vermont Christian School, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that Act 73 is a deliberate measure to exclude religious institutions, a claim that invokes the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Allegations of Discrimination: The plaintiffs contend the law constitutes a “religious gerrymander,” designed to circumvent recent court rulings that affirmed the rights of religious schools to receive public benefits. This challenges the goal of reducing inequalities based on religion or belief.
• Questioning Institutional Justice: The lawsuit posits that the 25% public-funding threshold is an “arbitrary line” created specifically to exclude religious schools while favoring certain secular independent schools. This questions the fairness, accountability, and non-discriminatory nature of legislative institutions, a core component of SDG 16.

State Response and the Path Forward

The defendants, including the Vermont Education Secretary and the State Board of Education, have not commented on the pending litigation. The legal proceedings will test the state’s institutional frameworks in balancing public education policy with principles of non-discrimination.

• Legal experts have noted the difficulty in proving that the legislature’s intent was specifically to exclude religious schools.
• The immediate procedural step is for the court to decide whether this new challenge to Act 73 can be merged with the ongoing original lawsuit.
• The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the interpretation of equitable access to education (SDG 4) and the role of institutions in preventing discrimination (SDG 10, SDG 16) within Vermont.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s central theme is access to education and the public funding mechanisms that support it. The dispute over Vermont’s Act 73, which changes eligibility for public tuition dollars for private schools, directly impacts the ability of families to choose certain schools, including religious ones. This relates to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The original lawsuit stemmed from the school’s refusal to compete against a team with a transgender player. This action and the subsequent ban from state athletics bring up issues of discrimination based on gender identity, which is a key component of achieving gender equality and ensuring non-discriminatory environments in all settings, including school sports.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The core of the school’s legal challenge is the claim of discrimination. The lawsuit argues that the new law “creates a religious gerrymander and discriminates against religious approved independent schools.” This directly addresses the goal of reducing inequalities by challenging laws and policies that are perceived as discriminatory based on religion.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article describes a legal battle within the U.S. judicial system, where a school is challenging a state law in federal court. This highlights the process of seeking justice, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring that institutions (legislatures, courts) are effective, accountable, and non-discriminatory. The entire process of filing a lawsuit, appealing decisions, and challenging legislation is fundamental to this goal.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.5 (under SDG 4): “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.”

  The lawsuit argues that the law prevents families from using public tuition dollars for religious schools, creating a barrier to access based on religious affiliation. This aligns with the principle of ensuring equal access to education for all groups.

• Target 5.1 (under SDG 5): “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.”

  The initial conflict that led to the lawsuit was the school’s forfeiture of a game “against a team with a transgender player.” This action is a form of discrimination based on gender identity, which this target aims to eliminate in all spheres of life, including sports.

• Target 10.3 (under SDG 10): “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.”

  This target is directly relevant to the school’s claim that Vermont’s Act 73 was designed to “gerrymander them out by redefining which approved independent schools could receive public tuition.” The lawsuit is an attempt to eliminate a law they view as discriminatory.

• Target 16.b (under SDG 16): “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.”

  The entire legal proceeding described in the article is a real-world example of the challenge of promoting and enforcing non-discriminatory laws. The court case will determine whether Act 73 is a legitimate regulation or a discriminatory policy designed to “exclude all private religious schools and their families from receiving generally available public benefits.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of schools eligible for public funding: The article explicitly states that as a result of the new law, “18 private schools remain eligible for public tuition dollars.” This quantifiable data point serves as an indicator of the law’s impact on access to education (SDG 4) and potential inequality (SDG 10). Tracking this number before and after the law shows the policy’s effect.
• Public funding eligibility criteria: The article specifies the new requirements for schools to receive public funds: they “must have had at least 25% of their student body from the 2023-24 school year funded by a Vermont public school district.” This “25% public-funding floor” is a specific, measurable indicator used within the policy itself, which the lawsuit calls “an arbitrary line.”
• Legal challenges against state policies: The existence of the lawsuit itself (“The Mid Vermont Christian School is challenging Vermont’s education reform law in federal court”) is an indicator of access to justice (SDG 16). The number and outcome of such legal challenges can measure how effectively non-discriminatory policies are being debated and enforced.
• Incidents of discrimination in school activities: The event that triggered the original lawsuit—the school being “banned from participating in state athletics because it forfeited against a team with a transgender player”—is a specific incident. Tracking the frequency of such events and the resulting administrative or legal actions serves as an indicator for measuring progress toward ending discrimination in schools (SDG 5 and SDG 10).

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: vtdigger.org