The Assault on Educational Integrity: How HB2266 Threatens Both Religious Freedom and Local Control in Arizona

The Legislative Landscape

Arizona finds itself at the center of a national battle over the role of religion in public education with the advancement of House Bill 2266 through the House Education Committee. This legislation would fundamentally alter the relationship between religious instruction and public schooling by changing a single word in existing law—replacing “may” with “shall”—to compel school districts to excuse students for off-campus religious education programs. While current Arizona law already permits districts to approve such absences at their discretion, HB2266 would remove local decision-making authority entirely, forcing compliance regardless of community values or educational considerations.

The bill’s proponents, primarily LifeWise Academy and its supporters, frame this change as an expansion of parental rights and religious liberty. LifeWise Academy, founded by Joel Penton in 2018, describes its program as teaching “Bible-based character classes” aligned with “historic, orthodox Christian beliefs.” The organization operates under the legal framework established by a 1952 Supreme Court ruling that allows religious instruction during school hours provided it occurs off campus, receives private funding, and requires parental permission.

The National Strategy Unveiled

What makes HB2266 particularly concerning is its origins in a coordinated national strategy. The legislation follows model language created by the Alliance Defending Freedom with assistance from First Liberty—organizations with documented histories of working to impose conservative Christian worldviews on American law and policy. During a December 2024 meeting of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, advocates openly discussed targeting states like Arizona that use permissive language (“may”) rather than mandatory language (“shall”) in their religious release statutes.

Matthew Faraci, an advisory board member for NACL, explicitly stated their strategy: focus on red states with permissive language to override potential resistance from what he termed “woke school districts.” Faraci’s comments reveal the underlying agenda when he described the United States as a “Christian nation that tolerates other religions” and claimed that departure from Christian values has caused national problems. This fundamental misrepresentation of American history and constitutional principles deserves serious scrutiny.

The Constitutional Context

The historical record directly contradicts the “Christian nation” narrative advanced by HB2266’s supporters. The U.S. Constitution contains no mention of God or Christianity, instead establishing a clear separation between religious and governmental authority. Founding figures including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin were deeply influenced by Enlightenment rationalism rather than orthodox Christianity. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously approved by the Senate, explicitly declared that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Arizona already maintains robust mechanisms for religious education through its Empowerment Scholarship Account voucher program, which allows parents to use public funding for private religious schools. HB2266 represents an additional encroachment into public education space rather than a necessary expansion of existing rights.

The Erosion of Local Control

Undermining Community Governance

The most immediate threat posed by HB2266 is its assault on local control of education. School boards elected by their communities currently possess the authority to determine excused absence policies based on local needs, values, and educational priorities. This bill would strip away that authority, replacing community decision-making with a state mandate. Representative Stephanie Simacek rightly identified this as removing local control from school boards—a principle that conservatives traditionally champion.

The legislation creates a troubling precedent where state lawmakers override local educational decisions to serve specific religious interests. When Representative David Marshall introduced the bill, his description followed the Alliance Defending Freedom’s model legislation word-for-word, demonstrating how outside organizations are dictating Arizona’s educational policy.

Educational Integrity Concerns

Proponents claim the program only removes students from class for one hour weekly, but the legislation contains no time limitations. As Representative Simacek noted, transportation to off-campus locations would likely consume additional instructional time. Public schools face immense pressure to improve academic outcomes, and regularly removing students from core instruction undermines these efforts regardless of the activity’s nature.

LifeWise Academy claims its program improves public school attendance and reduces behavioral issues, but these assertions lack independent verification. More concerning are reports from Jeanne Casteen of Secular AZ that the program uses food and other incentives to “bribe” students to attend while encouraging participants to recruit classmates—tactics that raise ethical questions about voluntariness.

The Dangerous Slippery Slope

From Permission to Compulsion

The change from “may” to “shall” represents more than semantic nuance—it marks a fundamental shift from accommodating religious practice to compelling institutional support for specific religious activities. While religious accommodation remains a vital American principle, government compulsion in religious matters violates the very freedom it purports to protect.

Representative Justin Olson claimed the bill prevents the state from “establishing secularism as the religion of the state,” but this misrepresents both secularism and establishment clause jurisprudence. Government neutrality toward religion is not equivalent to establishing secularism as a state religion—it represents the constitutional requirement that government not favor any particular faith tradition.

The Threat to Pluralism

When Representative Matt Gress criticized Democrats for not attending legislative prayers and suggested faith is “under assault,” he revealed a perspective that conflates religious privilege with religious freedom. True religious freedom ensures that all faiths—and no faith—receive equal treatment under law, not that specific religious practices receive government endorsement or facilitation.

The vision articulated by LifeWise supporters—of a “Christian nation” that merely tolerates other religions—contradicts the pluralistic foundation upon which America was built. This worldview threatens the inclusion of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, secular, and other non-Christian students in Arizona’s public schools.

Preserving Constitutional Principles

Defending Authentic Religious Freedom

Religious freedom flourishes when government maintains neutrality among faith traditions. The genius of the First Amendment’s establishment clause is that it protects all religions by favoring none. HB2266 undermines this principle by using state power to facilitate particular religious instruction during the school day.

Parents already possess numerous avenues for providing religious education to their children—including after-school programs, weekend classes, voucher-supported private schools, and home instruction. Using the compulsory education system to integrate specific religious teaching crosses the constitutional line between accommodation and establishment.

Protecting Public Education’s Mission

Public schools serve as common ground where students from diverse backgrounds learn together as future citizens. This mission requires maintaining an environment inclusive of all faiths and none. When schools become conduits for specific religious instruction, however voluntary it may appear, they risk alienating students who don’t share those beliefs.

David Rose’s assertion that “faith was removed” from schools creating a “hostile environment” misdiagnoses the purpose of public education. Schools become hostile not when they maintain neutrality toward religion, but when they privilege particular religious viewpoints above others.

The Path Forward

Arizona lawmakers should reject HB2266 and reaffirm their commitment to both genuine religious freedom and local control of education. The existing system—which allows school districts to determine their own policies regarding religious release time—strikes the appropriate balance between accommodation and constitutional integrity.

Community-based decision-making through elected school boards represents the democratic ideal that Arizona should champion. When outside organizations with national agendas attempt to override local governance, whether on religious or other matters, they undermine the principles of self-governance that form the foundation of our republic.

The debate over HB2266 ultimately concerns what kind of society we want to become: one where government facilitates specific religious practices, or one where religious pluralism flourishes through government neutrality. The constitutional choice is clear, and Arizona should choose the path that has served American freedom for more than two centuries—keeping church and state separate while protecting every individual’s right to worship according to their conscience.