logo
Majority of US adults support religious chaplains in public schools, a new AP-NORC poll shows

Majority of US adults support religious chaplains in public schools, a new AP-NORC poll shows

WASHINGTON (AP) — Few U.S. adults support allowing religious schools to become tax-funded public charter schools, but a majority favors allowing religious chaplains to provide support services for public school students, a new poll finds.
The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows the complexity of Americans' attitudes toward religious expression in schools, which varies depending on the kind of expression and sometimes crosses partisan lines.
The findings also highlight tension points in the country's long-standing debate over the role of religion in public schools, which continues to drive legislation and legal action. Recent examples include a lawsuit against a new Arkansas measure that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, a push by lawmakers in multiple states to allow religious chaplains to serve in student support roles in public schools, and the U.S. Supreme Court's 4-4 decision that blocked plans for a publicly funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma.
On some issues like teacher-led prayer, white evangelical Protestants and Black Protestants — who traditionally find themselves on opposite sides of the political aisle — are both largely supportive, dividing them from other religious groups. White evangelical Protestants are more likely than many other religious groups to say religion has 'too little' influence on what children are taught in public schools.
Chaplains in schools are popular, but not teacher prayer
About 6 in 10 U.S. adults say that religious chaplains should be allowed to provide support services for students in public schools, but most do not think teacher-led prayer or a mandatory period during school hours for private prayer should be allowed in public schools.
Texas became the first state to allow chaplains, in 2023. After that, lawmakers in several states considered similar bills. It's illustrative of an ongoing conservative push to bring more religion into the classroom, which advocates of church-state separation are countering.
Sally Hacker, 61, a Republican and nondenominational Christian from Michigan, supports having chaplains in schools. They could help students use the Bible as a moral guide, she said.
'If they have problems, these students could go and talk to these preachers and these chaplains, and maybe they could help them figure out a way to get out of those problems,' Hacker said.
School chaplains are only somewhat divisive among religious Americans, although they're still opposed by a majority of nones, the term for atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular. But white evangelical Protestants and Black Protestants stand apart from Catholics, white mainline Protestants and nones in their support for teacher prayer and mandatory prayer periods in public schools.
For public schoolteacher Cameron Thompson, 47, of Ohio, teacher-led prayer is not OK if it's part of classroom instruction, but he doesn't see an issue if teachers choose to lead students in prayer as part of an extracurricular activity, like a Fellowship of Christian Athletes event.
'As an optional activity, I feel like it is something that, yeah, it should be allowed for sure,' said Thompson, a Republican and a Lutheran.
The questions exposed fault lines among partisans on both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats are firmly opposed to teacher-led prayer and mandatory school prayer periods but divided on chaplain support services in public schools, while Republicans are firmly in favor of chaplain support services and teacher-led prayer but divided on a mandatory school prayer period.
Public school psychologist Gary Leu, 64, of Utah, believes adding chaplains is misguided.
Leu, a Democrat, questions the motives behind it, wondering if chaplain programs are more about giving religious watchdogs access to schools or have some other agenda. He also is concerned about what, if any, professional standards and ethics the chaplains would be held to.
'I don't know what you're trying to accomplish that isn't already being accomplished,' said Leu, who is not affiliated with a particular religion but has a background in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Opposition to tax-funded religious charter schools, but more openness to vouchers
Americans are more likely to oppose allowing religious schools to become tax-funded public charter schools than to favor this. About 4 in 10 are opposed, while roughly one-quarter are in favor and about one-third are neither in favor nor opposed.
In general, U.S. adults are more divided on tax-funded vouchers that help parents pay for tuition for their children to attend private or religious schools of their choice instead of public schools. Similar shares oppose and favor this; about one-quarter are neutral.
In May, the Supreme Court's tie decision effectively ended what would have been the nation's first religious charter school, but it left the issue unresolved nationally.
There isn't majority support for allowing religious schools to become tax-funded public charter schools among any of the major religious groups analyzed, although about 4 in 10 white evangelical Protestants are in favor, compared with about 3 in 10 Catholics and Black Protestants and about 2 in 10 white mainline Protestants. Substantial shares of all of these groups neither favor nor oppose this idea. Most nones oppose allowing religious schools to become tax-funded public charter schools.
Jess Tichenor, 39, of Oregon, is among the nones who strongly oppose tax-funded religious charter schools as she is wary of favoritism for Christianity.
'In an ideal situation, the publicly funded schools would be a safe place for any religion to be recognized or even practiced,' said Tichenor, who practices Buddhism. She feels similarly about school vouchers.
Against the backdrop of favorable decisions by the conservative-majority Supreme Court, several states have expanded school voucher programs in recent years.
Supporters say these programs help families make the best choice for their children's education. At the Republican National Convention, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee called it the 'civil rights issue of our time.' Tennessee expanded its school voucher program in February.
Besides discrimination concerns and church-state issues, opponents worry that school vouchers take money from public schools, which serve most U.S. students, and benefit higher-income families that already use private schools.
'If they're going to end up sending their kids to a special private school, they need to fund that out of their own pocket,' said Hacker, the nondenominational Christian from Michigan.
Other views on religion and public schools
__ About 3 in 10 U.S. adults say religion has 'too much' influence on what children are taught in public school. About two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants say religion has 'too little' influence.
__ About half of Americans favor requiring public schools to provide parents with lists of books that are available to students, while about one-third neither favor nor oppose this and 14% are opposed.
__ Nearly half, 45%, of U.S. adults oppose religious exemptions for childhood vaccines that are required for students attending public schools, while roughly one-quarter are in favor and about 3 in 10 are neutral.
__ Most adults say freedom of religion and church-state separation are 'extremely' or 'very' important to the United States' identity as a nation, but 81% say religious freedom is important, compared with 64% who say this about separation of church and state.
___
Meyer reported from Nashville, Tenn.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill – and made it even uglier
Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill – and made it even uglier

USA Today

time27 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill – and made it even uglier

For all the talk of slashing government spending, the GOP has put together one of the most counterproductive efforts in modern history. On Tuesday, July 1, the Senate passed its version of President Donald Trump's ironically named One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill is anything but beautiful. After weeks of negotiating, the Senate finally got the votes to send its version back to the House of Representatives. Any hope of the Senate being the more responsible legislative body, which is generally the case, vanished as it became clear they would pass a spending monstrosity even worse than the version the House put together. While it was necessary to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, the Senate has passed a completely irresponsible budget that endangers America's fiscal health. The Trump tax cuts needed to be extended, but not like this This entire piece of legislation is oriented around extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which is good policy. In fact, it's just about the only good part of the bill. If not extended, the expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would have been devastating to Americans. If allowed to expire, 62% of Americans would see a tax increase, according to the Tax Foundation. Extending the TCJA would result in a gross domestic product growth of 1.1% in the long run. The issue is that the extension of these tax cuts will result in a revenue loss of $4.5 trillion for the federal government. The economic growth spurred by the act will cover just $710 billion of that shortfall, leaving nearly $3.8 trillion that needs to be paid for somehow. The tax cuts themselves aren't the only significant source of spending in the bill. A sticking point for swing district Republicans has been the state and local tax (the SALT deduction), or the amount of state tax burden taxpayers can deduct from their federal income tax. Certain House Republicans have demanded that the annual limit of $10,000 be raised to $40,000, and the Senate has begrudgingly given them their increase for the next five years. Opinion: Supreme Court's birthright citizenship opinion reveals rising hostility, tension I've written elsewhere about why the SALT deduction is bad policy, but combined with other changes to the alternative minimum tax would result in a $325 billion revenue loss on net. The Senate's version is even more generous on these policies than the House's version was. Additionally, the big ugly mess includes no tax on tips, social security and overtime pay. Neither Trump nor Republicans more generally have made a case for why these types of income are deserving of exempt status, and they amount to nothing more than a populist bribe of voters. These policies add hundreds of billions more to the revenue decreases from the tax cut extension. Other defense and immigration enforcement provisions bring the grand cost of the legislation up to $4 trillion once the long-term economic growth is accounted for. Work requirements for Medicaid benefits and food stamps are the chief sources of new funding to offset these costs, as well as the elimination of certain clean energy tax credits. The House should hold the line against Senate's fiscally irresponsible bill As written, the Senate version of the bill adds even more to the budget deficit than the version the House put together. The House version was a fiscally irresponsible mess, which was estimated to add about $1.7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, even after considering the economic growth that the bill is projected to create. The Senate version is estimated to add $2.9 trillion under the same metrics. Previously: Trump's 'big beautiful bill' is an ugly fiscal mess created by Republicans | Opinion Some House Republicans have already expressed frustrations with the Senate version of the bill, which House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to pass before Friday, Independence Day. The budget hawks in the House must hold the line against the careless spending the Senate has engaged in. The House bill that passed in the first go-around was a mess, and the Senate made it even worse. The Senate version also exaggerates its benefits and underestimates its costs by making many of its programs temporary. This allows them to gloss over this fact when discussing the benefits while claiming a lower cost. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. All of these games are played in order to avoid tough political conversations about slashing entitlements, the chief cause of our escalating budget crisis. I have little faith in the House's ability to stop this mess of a bill. Our legislators (with one notable exception) are so terrified of the prospect of a Trump primary challenge that they will vote for just about anything to avoid being the one to hold up the president's desired budget. America's takeaway from this should be to laugh hysterically the next time Republicans claim to be the party of responsible spending. For all the talk of slashing government spending, the GOP has put together one of the most counterproductive efforts in modern history. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

Group of cities sues Trump administration over new changes to Obamacare enrollment and eligibility
Group of cities sues Trump administration over new changes to Obamacare enrollment and eligibility

CNN

time33 minutes ago

  • CNN

Group of cities sues Trump administration over new changes to Obamacare enrollment and eligibility

A group of Democratic-led cities sued the Trump administration Tuesday over new changes to the Affordable Care Act that they say will undermine the sweeping health care law and result in nearly 2 million Americans losing health insurance. The rule, finalized on June 25, shortens the open enrollment period for Americans buying insurance on the marketplace and ends a monthly special enrollment period for people with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty line. It also introduces more preenrollment requirements, such as income verification checks. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated last month between 725,000 and 1.8 million people could lose coverage due to the rule, but said the changes introduce new 'safeguards' against improper enrollment and overspending. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maryland, was brought by the cities of Chicago, Baltimore and Columbus, Ohio, as well as an association of doctors and a non-profit network of small businesses that rely on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. They allege that several parts of the new rule violate the ACA and other federal laws, and say the administration ran afoul of federal rulemaking procedures when it created the new policies, including by failing to respond to public comments submitted as the rule was being finalized. 'Rather than reducing the cost of insurance for consumers, or increasing their enrollment rates and benefits, Defendants' new policies will cause at least 1.8 million Americans to lose coverage on the ACA's health insurance Exchanges in 2026 alone and will ultimately result in higher premiums in the long term and higher out-of-pocket costs for the remaining enrollees,' attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys with Democracy Forward, are asking the court to wipe away the parts of the new rule they're challenging. Spokespeople for CMS and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Advocates for the Trump administration's rule changes say the ACA marketplace is rife with fraud because of expanded subsidies, or tax credits that keep Americans' monthly premiums low. Millions of people are enrolling in those low-cost plans even if their income makes them ineligible for heavily subsidized plans, according to conservative think tank Paragon Health Institute. Congress expanded those subsidies in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic, but the temporary tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025. The beefed-up subsidies helped drive a record 24 million people to sign up for coverage for 2025. The new rule is set to take effect in late August. The House version of President Donald Trump's agenda bill would codify the rule into law, though the Senate legislation has different provisions, which would also tighten eligibility for subsidies and increase verification requirements.

UPenn to ban transgender athletes, feds say, ending civil rights case focused on swimmer Lia Thomas
UPenn to ban transgender athletes, feds say, ending civil rights case focused on swimmer Lia Thomas

Fox Sports

time34 minutes ago

  • Fox Sports

UPenn to ban transgender athletes, feds say, ending civil rights case focused on swimmer Lia Thomas

Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to ban transgender women from its women's sports teams to resolve a federal civil rights case that found the school violated the rights of female athletes. The U.S. Education Department announced the voluntary agreement Tuesday. The case focused on Lia Thomas, the transgender swimmer who last competed for the Ivy League school in Philadelphia in 2022, when she became the first openly transgender athlete to win a Division I title. It's part of the Trump administration's broader attempt to remove transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports. Under the agreement, Penn agreed to restore all individual Division I swimming records and titles to female athletes who lost out to Thomas, the Education Department said. Penn also agreed to send a personalized apology letter to each of those swimmers. It wasn't immediately clear whether Thomas would be stripped of her awards and honors at Penn. The university must also announce that it 'will not allow males to compete in female athletic programs' and it must adopt 'biology-based' definitions of male and female, the department said. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a victory for women and girls. 'The Department commends UPenn for rectifying its past harms against women and girls, and we will continue to fight relentlessly to restore Title IX's proper application and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law,' McMahon said in a statement. The Education Department opened its investigation in February and concluded in April that Penn had violated Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding sex discrimination in education. Such findings have almost always been resolved through voluntary agreements. If Penn had fought the finding, the department could have moved to refer the case to the Justice Department or pursued a separate process to cut the school's federal funding. In February, the Education Department asked the NCAA and the National Federation of State High School Associations, or NFSHSA, to restore titles, awards and records it says have been 'misappropriated by biological males competing in female categories.' The most obvious target at the college level was in women's swimming, where Thomas won the national title in the 500-yard freestyle in 2022. The NCAA has updated its record books when recruiting and other violations have stripped titles from certain schools, but the organization, like the NFSHSA, has not responded to the federal government's request. Determining which events had a transgender athlete participating years later would be challenging. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at recommended

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store