It might be time to consider EH school consolidation
Letter to the Editor,
A Jan. 4 Bargain Hunter story reported East Holmes District’s intention to renovate school buildings. As a district resident, I appreciate their invitation for comment.
Having substituted in most EH buildings, I agree students and staff deserve updated facilities. Before putting funds into renovations, though, let’s consider nearby school districts — Waynedale, Triway and others — have pursued unified campuses. This is sensible, given the tax burdens of extra busing, utility maintenance strains, staffing-resource duplication and extra insurance. Could renovation money instead fund consolidation?
Consolidation addresses not only economic inefficiencies, but also a looming concern, namely that half of EH’s school buildings are de facto segregated along religious denominational lines (Flat Ridge, Wise, Mt. Hope and Chestnut Ridge). These buildings represent potential liabilities — potential costs to taxpayers — because they raise two constitutional concerns.
First, the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Brown v. Board of Education, suggests that just by their mere existence, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” — by race and arguably by religion. And measurable inequalities do exist. EH’s segregated schools cost 11.4% more ($1,519 per student) and outperform integrated schools in testing 91.6/100 versus 87.6/100. These substantial differences suggest EH’s segregated buildings benefit from unequal distributions.
The second is church-state entanglement. As many smaller Christian groups know, the First Amendment guarantees the government will not infringe on religion. Amish, Catholics, community churches and others are afforded free religious exercise, even to run private segregated schools. Indeed, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amish defendants religious free exercise for their schooling. Since then the government has basically left Amish private schools alone.
In order to protect free exercise, the First Amendment simultaneously bars government entanglement with particular religious groups. In Europe religions in power used state force against smaller religions, inflicting imprisonments, exiles and martyrdom. To prevent this from happening again, the Constitution’s authors prohibited religious favoritism such as “establishing” certain religions.
As such, the Yoder court would have been unlikely to extend religious freedom to religious-based segregation in public buildings. After all, one reason public institutions can tax all residents is because public institutions are for all, without favoring some groups over others. Currently, taxpayers are funding public buildings that are unequal and potentially entangled with denominational considerations.
The strength of public schools is in building community by bringing people together across differences. In an age when bullying frequently tops school priorities, our institutional arrangements should model inclusion rather than separation. Other districts serving sizable Amish populations — Westview Schools and Millerburg in Elkhart-LaGrange, Indiana, for example — demonstrate that integrated buildings are accepted and working.
I hold positive recollections from time spent in EH buildings, of students’ and teachers’ welcoming acts. The question before us is not about criticizing any group or school but about ensuring our public institutions serve their foundational purpose — of bringing the community together, whether through a unified campus or more intentional integration.
I welcome reader thoughts.
Dr. Cory Anderson
Millersburg
Editor’s note: Dr. Cory Anderson welcomes comments to P.O. Box 37, Mt. Hope, OH 44660, or by email at contact@coryanderson.org.