by Mara Richards Bim

Mara Richards Bim serves as a Clemons Fellow with Baptist News Global (BNG) and as program director at Faith Commons. She is a spiritual director and a recent master of divinity degree graduate from Perkins School of Theology at SMU. She also is an award-winning theater artist and founder of the nationally acclaimed Cry Havoc Theater Company which operated in Dallas from 2014 to 2023. This is an abbreviated version of her February 03, 2025 BNG article, which can be found here.

Texas Governor Abbott has made “school choice” his mission over the last few years, going so far as to spend 2024 actively campaigning against rural Republicans who opposed to ensure that he would have enough votes in this legislative session to pass it.

There are many reasons for Texans to oppose school vouchers including that they are tools used to enforce racial segregation and to harm students with disabilities whom private schools are not legally obligated to accept. But, as I listened to the recent testimony at the Texas Senate Education Committee hearing, new red flags were raised for me. The Committee—in order to stack the deck in its favor—began the hearing with 2.5 hours of conversation between the Senators and invited guests who spoke glowingly of the bill. A little too glowingly, actually.

Some Highlights from the Invited Testimony

In the invited testimony before the Senate Committee on Education, something kept coming up over and over that raised alarm bells for me. The guests repeatedly expressed gratitude to the Senate committee for the “freedom” afforded to them in SB2 and dismissed any legal concerns around church and state separation. 

Nathan Cunneen, Texas State Director at the American Federation for Children (an advocacy organization)

This proposal maximizes freedom for families and students while placing common sense guardrails for providers, vendors, and the EAOs that would help administrate the program. Guardrails are not the same thing as strings attached. Numerous school choice programs around the country have had similar accountability measures as these for decades and not in one instance has that led to the government takeover of private schools or the further regulation of homeschoolers. I would encourage this committee to be incredibly clear with their language in making it clear that this program will not attempt to infringe on the protections placed on private schools and students. 

Arif Panju, Managing Attorney of the Texas Office of Institute for Justice (a national legal advocacy organization pushing for school choice in states across the country)

It is our opinion at [Institute for Justice] that SB2 fully complies with the U.S. Constitution and with the Texas Constitution—referring to the education clause, which is what you hear about often…What’s left with opponents is education clauses. And they like to weaponize a state constitution’s education clause, which requires a very simple thing: creating and maintaining a public education system. It’s just a mandate. These things per the text in Article 7 section 1 of our state constitution, are not prohibitions on the legislature’s power to create additional educational options. The Texas Supreme Court has held that decades ago—and the plain language of the provision says as much—as long as there’s a public school system before and after the program, we’re fine. There’s nothing stopping the legislature from enacting SB2.

Matt Ticzkus, Regional Director of the Mid-South American Association of Christian Schools which is affiliated with American Association of Christian Schools (a school credentialing organization):

The autonomy and religious liberty language contained in the bill is exceptionally strong as it conveys to participating schools that they’re free to carry out the mission of their school with no impact to curriculum admissions or hiring, and that a participating school is not a recipient of federal financial funds or a state actor.

Taxpayer Funds, School Choice and Accreditation

What Arif Panju failed to mention in his testimony before the Texas Senate Committee was that a bill identical to Texas’s was just ruled unconstitutional in South Carolina by that state’s Supreme Court. Perhaps he failed to mention it because his organization has is now involved in and has a financial stake in seeing this issue make it to the Supreme Court. 

What Matt Ticzkus failed to mention in his testimony is more interesting. He introduced himself as follows:

I’m a volunteer board member for the Texas Private Schools Association representing the 941 accredited nonprofit Texas schools who serve more than 300,000 students. I’m here today in support of SB2. At the outset of my testimony, I want to affirm on behalf of our members that we appreciate the work that public schools do, and we consider them to be partners in educating the next generation. For nine years, I served as head of school at a small private school in North Texas, and today I serve as a regional director for a nonprofit. I’m not a highly paid lobbyist or some big donor, nor do I represent one.

To quote Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

It turns out that Tisczus is the Regional Director of the Mid-South American Association of Christian Schools which is a subsidiary of American Association of Christian Schools, a credentialing organization for Christian private schools focused on delivering curriculum that embraces a “Biblical worldview.”

As SB2 currently stands, there is no requirement that private schools be accredited to receive taxpayer funds.

It is here we land at the crux of just why people like Tisczus are especially pleased with the current iteration of the bill and the “religious freedom” it affords private schools.

Last year, Huffington Post conducted an audit of 7,200 private schools across the country receiving taxpayer funding through school choice programs. They found that 75 percent of participating schools are religious, specifically: 42% are non-Catholic Christian, 31% are Catholic, 23% are non-sectarian/secular, 2% are Jewish and 1% are Muslim. 

They did a deep-dive into the curriculum being taught by the 42% non-Catholic Christian and found that 33% were using textbooks from the leading publishers selling curriculum  emphasizing a “biblical worldview” marked by creationism and a rejection of science.

By comparison, I did a deep dive into Texas Private Schools Association (TPSA) and the 941 schools currently credentialed by one of its member credentialing organizations. I found that roughly two-thirds of them advertise that they teach “a biblical worldview.” Many utilize curriculum produced by Abeka, Purposeful Design Publications, Accelerated Christian Education (ACE School of Tomorrow) and Bob Jones University Press (BJU Press).

To be clear: Modern-day Catholics and Mainline Protestants do not see a conflict between science and faith. It is only certain kinds of extremist Christian sects that do.

Taxpayer Funds, School Choice, Anti-Science and Young-Earth Creationism

I was curious about these schools that advertise using “comprehensive, biblically-based curriculum” from these providers and what, exactly, is in the curriculum. So I purchased some to review for myself from Abeka, the largest of the “biblical worldview” curriculum provider including: 7th Grade Science Textbook Science: Order and Design, 8th Grade Science Textbook Science: Earth and Space and 10th Grade Science Textbook Biology: God’s Living Creation.

Each of the three textbooks devotes a chapter to dismissing the theory of evolution as “superstition” and “bad science” in favor of young-earth creationism. The ramifications of this belief touch every aspect of each of the three textbooks.

The 7th grade section on mammals claims that “Although man has the physical characteristics of a mammal and was created on the same day as the land animals (Gen. 1:24–26), he is unique and separate from animals, including mammals.” The review section at the end of the chapter includes the question: “What are some reasons that man should not be considered a mammal? Use scripture to back your reasoning.”

The 7th grade textbook also states that the wide variety of felines today (from tigers to the domestic cat) “probably came from the two ‘cats’ that got off Noah’s ark.” The 8th grade textbook goes even farther with this notion by including a section analyzing the dimensions of Noah’s ark to make the case that all of life today could easily have come from the inhabitants of the ark.

Excerpt from the 7th Grade Textbook, Order and Design from Abeka Press.

All three textbooks attribute the biblical flood to every known phenomenon in our world from the extinction of the dinosaurs (who, the textbooks claim roamed the earth with humans) to the erosion of rocks. 

The textbooks also warn students to distrust science. The 8th grade section on geology states:

Geology also covers such topics as the features of the earth’s surface, the formation of the earth’s features, earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion, and fossils. Unfortunately, some areas of geology, especially the study of fossils, have become dominated by evolutionary philosophy. Therefore, we must be careful not to assume that the hypotheses and theories of modern evolutionary geologists are the best explanations for the existing features of the earth. God, the only eyewitness to the formation and geologic history of the earth, sheds light on these areas in His Word; and His statements are irreconcilable with evolutionary philosophy. For example, the great Flood in Genesis 7 and 8 is undoubtedly responsible for most of the earth’s present features and fossils, although evolutionists reject the Flood as a myth.

All three textbooks then go on to claim that the universe, solar system and earth are all less than 10,000 years old. The 7th grade textbook includes a special section that states, in part:

Evolutionists do not reject the biblical age of the earth because scientific evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old; rather, they reject it because their faith in the unproven and unprovable ideas of uniformitarianism and evolution requires an old Earth. In fact, when the scientific evidence for the age of the earth is examined without evolutionary assumptions, the evidence agrees with the biblical teaching that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Like the choice whether to believe in evolution or Creation, the choice whether to believe in an old Earth (billions of years old) or a young Earth (only thousands of years old) depends entirely on where one chooses to put his faith: in matter, energy, and error-prone hu-man reason, or in God and His perfect and true Word.

The 8th grade textbook reinforces this belief with thought-provoking review questions like: “If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates, why must the continents have moved much faster in the past if they were ever together?” 

Excerpt from 8th Grade Textbook, Science: Earth and Space, from Abeka Press.

Reinforcing young-earth creationism, the 10th grade textbook, when introducing the fossil record states:

Fossils are the remains or impressions of plants, animals, and humans preserved in sedimentary rock. Countless billions of fossils are found in the earth’s crust, most of which were probably buried during the worldwide Flood of Noah.

Especially troubling in each of the three textbooks are the chapters on ecology. 

Each textbook emphasizes Genesis 1:28 which states that humankind is to have “dominion” over the earth. Before exploring the subject of renewable resources, the 7th grade textbook warns: 

As Christians, we need to be careful to follow scriptural commands and avoid getting caught up in the world’s preservationist attitude. The following are some things we should remember: 1) Human life is sacred; animals and nature are not (Gen. 9:2–6); 2) God has given man dominion over nature (Gen. 1:28); 3) Man is charged with taking care of nature (Lev. 25:1–5).

Later, on the issue of climate science and climate change (the textbook does acknowledge that humans are at least partially responsible for the latter), the text warns:

Knowledge of science is essential to being a well-informed Christian who follows God’s commands to subdue and have dominion. Environmental hysteria comes from misinformation. To avoid misinformation, you should wisely use the scientific method to experiment and to interpret facts without bias, just as scientists should do. Collect the facts. Learn about advancements. Practicing conservation as part of good stewardship (managing nature for God as caretakers) brings glory to God.

The 8th grade textbook includes the same warning as above with this added text preceding it:

Many people hold unbiblical perspectives about the environment. One unbiblical perspective that people take is placing the earth’s needs above the needs of mankind. Some environmentalists disapprove of the harvesting of trees or the use of fossil fuels for any reason. Often, environmentalists treat humans as unimportant or as nature’s enemy and, in their attempt to protect nature, are a detriment to man. The most dangerous aspect of modern environmentalism is that it promotes a reverence for creation that should be reserved for God alone. The idea that nature is god is pantheism. 

The 10th grade textbook modifies the above warnings of getting involved in the fight against climate change:

Unfortunately, some people take conservation to such an extreme that they stress the welfare of nature above that of man. In their zeal to protect the environment, they dismiss man’s needs as unimportant. For example, some environmental extremists object to the harvesting of trees for any reason. Yet God created trees to provide people with lumber for homes, furniture, paper, household heating, and cooking. Forestry not only benefits mankind but also benefits the ecosystem by thinning a forest of diseased and dying trees to make room for new growth. Of course, if too many trees are cut down in an area the results can be detrimental, but cutting down a few trees where a high­ way or building is planned is reasonable. Logging companies can replant in forests where they harvest, and trees will reproduce on their own unless too many are harvested.

This curriculum teaches young people to reject all kinds of science from geology to biology. What are the implications for this kind of education for the fields of medicine, ecology, meteorology and more? 

If you’d like to read some of the curriculum for yourself, click here.

A New Frontier in the Fight Against School Vouchers?

Multiple courts have ruled that using taxpayer funds to teach young-earth creationism and, more recently, “intelligent design, violates the both state and First Amendment establishment clauses.

The major U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this matter was decided in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard in which the Court declared Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” unconstitutional. More recently, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III issued a judgement in 2005 in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover striking down the school board’s policy of teaching “intelligent design” alongside evolution. 

In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones issued a scathing rebuke of creationism which had been renamed “intelligent design” stating, for the record that this “is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.”

Parents have a right to educate their children as they wish—even if that means teaching them junk science. But that right must be balanced by the rights of taxpayers who do not wish to see their taxes diverted to religious teachings they disagree with.