Written by Dr. John James, professor of educational administration in the School of Education, Herrmann Center for Innovative Catholic Education at Saint Louis University, john.t.james@slu.edu
100 years ago, the Ku Klux Klan pushed for and successfully passed a state initiative that attempted to outlaw Catholic education in Oregon (Tyack, 1968). A group of nuns, funded by the Knights of Columbus, challenged the law all the way to the United States Supreme Court and won. We celebrate the centennial of this landmark decision recognizing parental rights in education which the Catholic Church calls “primordial” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1997, n2221) and solemnizes in two sacraments.
The Compulsory Education Act, adopted by the voters of Oregon in 1922, required all children between eight and sixteen years to attend “a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year” with some limited exemptions (Pierce v. Society Sisters, 1925).
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the contention of the lower court that the law deprived private schools of property without due process of law (a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment). It spelled out certain rights of states regarding the regulation of education, but carved out in poetic prose the right of parents to regulate the education of their children against which the state had unreasonably encroached: “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations” (Pierce v. Society Sisters, 1925).
This case effectively staked out the type of oversight that might be exercised by the state while simultaneously asserting a fundamental right of parents to direct the education of their children. In the aftermath of the decision, Catholic schools were faced with three significant issues that are still with us today.
Formation of Teachers within a Framework of State Oversight
The immediate impact of the decision on Catholic schools beyond allowing their existence, was to validate a rapidly growing trend among states to certify teachers. In 1921, no state had required even one year of college or normal school as a minimum requirement of teaching, but by 1922, “a first grade certificate in some states could be exchanged for a high school certificate if fifty-four college credits had been earned” (Meyers, 1941, p. 29). By 1926 all states issued one or more certificates that “developed into the amazing variety of credentials issued today” (Meyers, 1941, p. 29). In the most authoritative study of the education of sister-teachers, Meyers (1941) writes: “No other single factor in the history of Catholic education exerted more pressure on the elevation of school and teaching standards than did state affiliation, which paved the way for the more recent seeking of admission into the regional standardizing associations. It invited state intervention…State approval meant school prestige. More than any other agency it motivated at least the quantitative improvement in the professional status of the religious teacher” (Meyers, 1941, 1940, p. 33).
Religious superiors now faced explosive growth in Catholic schools, the need to form young religious, and to provide for the increasing professional demands imposed by the state whose only remedy was often found at state institutions. “Forced, in many instances, to receive a large part of her professional training under non-Catholic auspices, there not infrequently arose the conflict between principles of secular pedagogy and Catholic doctrine and traditions. How to preserve intact religious zeal and the particular spirit of an Order, and at the same time make the adaptations required by changed conditions, was a problem to which no satisfactory solution offered” (Meyers, 1941, p. 33-34). In Meyers’ study (1925), the majority of provincials expressed a concern as follows: “In visiting the classes of various schools I can always spot the Sister trained at the state university. There is a secular atmosphere about the room that is hard to describe but is very evident” (p. 72). A significant number of Deans who worked with the sister teachers remarked on the instruction in such classrooms: “…her interpretations of poetry and her approach to the study of literature were so naturalistic, even persistently paganistic, that it was not only out of harmony but frankly antagonistic to Catholic doctrine” (p. 73).
Catholic colleges and universities began filling this need in the early 20th century. Marquette University started summer sessions in 1909, DePaul University and Catholic University began theirs in 1911, and Notre Dame followed suit in 1918 (Gleason, 1995). In 1916, Fr James Shannon, SJ, at Saint Louis University conducted a science course at Visitation Academy, and by 1919 Saint Louis University offered extension courses at three centers offering education to 152 sisters and 78 laywomen. The School of Education at Saint Louis University was created in 1925 expressly for this purpose: “In the Catholic scheme it has always been recognized that teachers who are able to exemplify and communicate Catholic culture are indispensable. A Catholic university must, then, not only bring forth educated Catholics; it must also supply Catholic educators. This briefly is the raison d etre for the School of Education at Saint Louis University” (James, 2019, p. 6). Meyers (1941) remarked that attendance of sisters at secular universities peaked during the 1925-1930 period “and is now definitely lower. However, it is still a common complaint that Sisters cannot get, at Catholic universities, the particular courses they need, and hence are forced to attend secular institutions” (p. 69)
Then as now, there is a need for the formation of teachers within a framework of state oversight. The only difference is now the challenge is with lay teachers and administrators. Cardinal Stritch wrote in the introduction of the study, “Too long we have either imitated secular teacher training and tried to make our theology of education merely an adjunct to it…Our need today is a great Catholic synthesis of teacher training which will bring into our work of education the fullness of our Catholic education ideal” (Meyers, 1941, xxiii). Then as now, its Catholic universities that are filling this need.
Fidelity to “Additional Obligations”
Pierce v. Society Sisters recognized that parents “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations” (Pierce v. Society Sisters, 1925). The Church asks in the Sacrament of Marriage about raising children according to the law of Christ and his Church, and in Baptism of accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that parents are “the first and best teachers of the faith” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1997, n1653).
We must take seriously our responsibility to partner with parents and assist them in this solemn obligation; Urbanski (2024) provides a wonderful practical example of how this can be done. We must also take seriously the foundational Christian anthropology upon which our educational apostolate is based (encapsulated in Gen 1:27 and John 3:16) and ensure that this truth animates all that we do! As Pope Benedict succinctly remarked to Catholic school educators in the United States, “First and foremost every Catholic educational institution is a place to encounter the living God who in Jesus Christ reveals his transforming love and truth” (Benedict XVI, 2008, para 2).
Genuine School Choice
The Pierce v. Society Sisters decision represented a concrete victory for school choice. We rightfully celebrate the recent success of school choice initiatives across the country including the $1 billion program recently passed in Texas that increasingly make Catholic schools an option for those of limited means, but Catholic schools must also more fully embrace school choice for students of all abilities. The Proceedings from the National Convening on Disabilities and Catholic Education (Boyle, 2025) called for “strategic advocacy and collaboration for school choice” (p.12). It calls upon us to ensure “that every child is welcomed, valued, and empowered to thrive…[as] a fundamental expression of our Catholic identity and mission” (Boyle, 2025, p.17).
Interested in hearing more? Register for this upcoming webinar:
September 16, 2025, 3:30 PM ET
