School Voucher Program Upheld in the Supreme Court

[lovelyivy84]

By ANNE GEARAN
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (June 27) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that tuition vouchers are constitutional, a landmark church-state decision that could fundamentally change the educational landscape by allowing wider public financing of religious schools.

The 5-4 decision allows taxpayer money to underwrite tuition at private or parochial schools if parents retain a wide choice of where to send their children. Like other recent rulings led by the court's conservative majority, the case allows blending of government and religion, and it takes that trend further than ever before.

Vouchers are an education idea championed by conservatives including President Bush, who call them a ticket out of dismal and dangerous public schools. Opponents say they are a sham and divert badly needed public money from already strapped public schools.

The decision closed out the court's annual term.

''The Supreme Court has offered the hope of an excellent education to parents and children throughout our country,'' Bush said. ''This decision clears the way for other innovative school choice programs so that no child in America will be left behind.''

Vouchers do not put the government in the unconstitutional position of promoting religion so long as parents make schooling choices for their children and have a wide menu of public, private or religious schools, the court majority said.

The ruling upholds a program in inner-city Cleveland that gives mostly poor parents a tuition subsidy of up to $2,250 per child. The city has one of the worst-rated school systems in the nation.

''The Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Cleveland parents may spend the money at private academies, church-run schools or at suburban public schools with better academic credentials. In practice, however, more than 95 percent of the participating schools are church-affiliated.

The majority rejected arguments that the program created the impression of government-sponsored religion.

''No reasonable observer would think a neutral program of private choice, where state aid reaches religious schools solely as a result of the numerous independent decisions of private individuals, carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement,'' Rehnquist wrote.

The ruling provoked three overlapping and strongly worded dissents. Justice David H. Souter wrote the main one, which was joined by fellow liberal-leaning Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Souter took the unusual step of announcing his dissent from the bench, and took aim at the idea that giving parents spending choices cancels out constitutional worries about where the money ends up.

''There is, in any case, no way to interpret the 96.6 percent of current voucher money going to religious schools as reflecting a free and genuine choice by the families that apply for vouchers,'' Souter wrote.

Writing separately, Stevens said the majority forgot the lessons of America's own founding, and the modern examples of religious unrest in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

''Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy,'' Stevens wrote.

The voucher case also spawned enormous public relations efforts among supporters and opponents, including ad campaigns featuring parents of voucher students.

''It means everything to us,'' said Elaine Barclay, who has two daughters attending a Baptist school under Cleveland's voucher program. ''We were praying they would rule for the vouchers.''

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the ruling ''the worst church-state decision in the past 50 years.''

''The Supreme Court has taken a wrecking ball to the wall of separation between church and state,'' Lynn said.

Thursday's ruling means the roughly 4,000 students in the 6-year-old Cleveland program may return to their parochial or private classrooms in the fall, and it probably also guarantees that similar voucher programs in Milwaukee and Florida will continue.

The ruling focused on whether the program violated the First Amendment's guarantee that government will not establish religion. With that constitutional cloud lifted, states may design new voucher programs like Cleveland's.

Voucher supporters and opponents both predicted the debate will now shift to state legislatures.

Teachers' unions lead the opposition, arguing that they drain public schools of motivated students, involved parents and crucial cash. Supporters counter that vouchers can force public schools to shed sluggish bureaucracies and compete to hold onto students and funding.

Congress last year shelved a White House voucher plan. Bush resurrected the idea this year, proposing in his 2003 budget to give families up to $2,500 per child in tax credits if they choose a private school rather than a failing neighborhood public school.

Thursday's ruling continues the conservative court majority's recent pattern of loosening the rules for using state money for religious purposes, and of mandating equal treatment for religious organizations or ideas.

The court has allowed tax deductions in Minnesota for parochial education expenses, state tuition aid for a Washington seminary student, and sign language interpreters for deaf parochial school students.

The court has also opened schoolhouse doors to a Bible club, required school funding for a religious magazine and allowed government aid for computers and tutoring in parochial schools.

Thursday's cases are Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751; Hannah Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1777; Taylor v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1779.

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84
By ANNE GEARAN
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (June 27) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that tuition vouchers are constitutional, a landmark church-state decision that could fundamentally change the educational landscape by allowing wider public financing of religious schools.

The 5-4 decision allows taxpayer money to underwrite tuition at private or parochial schools if parents retain a wide choice of where to send their children. Like other recent rulings led by the court's conservative majority, the case allows blending of government and religion, and it takes that trend further than ever before.

Vouchers are an education idea championed by conservatives including President Bush, who call them a ticket out of dismal and dangerous public schools. Opponents say they are a sham and divert badly needed public money from already strapped public schools.

The decision closed out the court's annual term.

''The Supreme Court has offered the hope of an excellent education to parents and children throughout our country,'' Bush said. ''This decision clears the way for other innovative school choice programs so that no child in America will be left behind.''

Vouchers do not put the government in the unconstitutional position of promoting religion so long as parents make schooling choices for their children and have a wide menu of public, private or religious schools, the court majority said.

The ruling upholds a program in inner-city Cleveland that gives mostly poor parents a tuition subsidy of up to $2,250 per child. The city has one of the worst-rated school systems in the nation.

''The Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Cleveland parents may spend the money at private academies, church-run schools or at suburban public schools with better academic credentials. In practice, however, more than 95 percent of the participating schools are church-affiliated.

The majority rejected arguments that the program created the impression of government-sponsored religion.

''No reasonable observer would think a neutral program of private choice, where state aid reaches religious schools solely as a result of the numerous independent decisions of private individuals, carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement,'' Rehnquist wrote.

The ruling provoked three overlapping and strongly worded dissents. Justice David H. Souter wrote the main one, which was joined by fellow liberal-leaning Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Souter took the unusual step of announcing his dissent from the bench, and took aim at the idea that giving parents spending choices cancels out constitutional worries about where the money ends up.

''There is, in any case, no way to interpret the 96.6 percent of current voucher money going to religious schools as reflecting a free and genuine choice by the families that apply for vouchers,'' Souter wrote.

Writing separately, Stevens said the majority forgot the lessons of America's own founding, and the modern examples of religious unrest in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

''Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy,'' Stevens wrote.

The voucher case also spawned enormous public relations efforts among supporters and opponents, including ad campaigns featuring parents of voucher students.

''It means everything to us,'' said Elaine Barclay, who has two daughters attending a Baptist school under Cleveland's voucher program. ''We were praying they would rule for the vouchers.''

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the ruling ''the worst church-state decision in the past 50 years.''

''The Supreme Court has taken a wrecking ball to the wall of separation between church and state,'' Lynn said.

Thursday's ruling means the roughly 4,000 students in the 6-year-old Cleveland program may return to their parochial or private classrooms in the fall, and it probably also guarantees that similar voucher programs in Milwaukee and Florida will continue.

The ruling focused on whether the program violated the First Amendment's guarantee that government will not establish religion. With that constitutional cloud lifted, states may design new voucher programs like Cleveland's.

Voucher supporters and opponents both predicted the debate will now shift to state legislatures.

Teachers' unions lead the opposition, arguing that they drain public schools of motivated students, involved parents and crucial cash. Supporters counter that vouchers can force public schools to shed sluggish bureaucracies and compete to hold onto students and funding.

Congress last year shelved a White House voucher plan. Bush resurrected the idea this year, proposing in his 2003 budget to give families up to $2,500 per child in tax credits if they choose a private school rather than a failing neighborhood public school.

Thursday's ruling continues the conservative court majority's recent pattern of loosening the rules for using state money for religious purposes, and of mandating equal treatment for religious organizations or ideas.

The court has allowed tax deductions in Minnesota for parochial education expenses, state tuition aid for a Washington seminary student, and sign language interpreters for deaf parochial school students.

The court has also opened schoolhouse doors to a Bible club, required school funding for a religious magazine and allowed government aid for computers and tutoring in parochial schools.

Thursday's cases are Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751; Hannah Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1777; Taylor v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1779.

Sigh...

Vouchers have been in place for about a year and a half in my state. The public schools are the ones suffering. It is a horrible idea.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by librasoul22


Sigh...

Vouchers have been in place for about a year and a half in my state. The public schools are the ones suffering. It is a horrible idea.

I don't like the current voucher program as well but here is what I don't get.....

Because public schools are tax supported (the state), you can no longer say a prayer or the "under GOD" in the pledge of allegiance, but yet these same tax dollars can be spent to send someone else's child to a religious school. If I'm an athesist, i'd be kind of upset. Either way it goes, someone is getting religion on my athesist tax dollars. Where is the seperation of church and state?

I can't pray in my local public school, but yet the state will send me to a private religious school where I can?

I think there needs to be an age cap on the Supreme Court because they are confusing me more than Tom Earp!

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
I think there needs to be an age cap on the Supreme Court because they are confusing me more than Tom Earp!

I have BEEN stopped trying to understand both, lol.

[AKA2D '91]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974


but here is what I don't get.....

Because public schools are tax supported (the state), you can no longer say a prayer or the "under GOD" in the pledge of allegiance, but yet these same tax dollars can be spent to send someone else's child to a religious school. If I'm an athesist, i'd be kind of upset. Either way it goes, someone is getting religion on my athesist tax dollars. Where is the seperation of church and state?

I can't pray in my local public school, but yet the state will send me to a private religious school where I can?

See, that's what I don't understand either. And why would an athiest even want to be able to send their child to a parochial school? Why event set foot on the grounds?

These people need to get their chit (ducks) "in a row".

[lovele1978]

I think that the governments first priority should be to make the public schools better, and reinvest in them. Parents wouldn't be running to put their kids in private school if they were better funded and had better standards.

[lovelyivy84]

I think this is just all the excuse that administrators need to give up on public education in minority neighborhoods altogether.

On the one hand, as someone whose parent scraped together the money SOMEHOW to send me to private school all my life, I gotta say that this whole voucher deal would have helped a GREAT deal.

But on the other, I just think it's an excuse for politicians not to put funding into public schools.

There are a lot of fine private and parochial institutions out there, but they can't take ALL the students. What happens to the ones who don't have the skills to be admitted? Aren't they the ones who need the help most? Aren't they the ones who receive even less monetary aid because of this policy?

I think this ruling is just attempting to balance the scales in terms of religious ties to the state- we can't say the pledge in public schools, or pray (not that I want that, but that's besides the point) but we DO have the publicly funded ability to send kids to schools where they can.

I just don't foresee this policy having a positive effect for the majority of kids who will be operating under it.

[prayerfull]

OK...I'm going to be in the minority on this one...and will probably take some heat...but remember, this is my honest, humble, personal opinion, which I am entitled to have...

I SUPPORT the school voucher program!!!

As a parent with 3 kids (2 of mine and 1 step son) in private school, I would really appreciate some type of tuition relief - not necessarily a "voucher", per se.

I support Bush's proposal to provide Tax Credits to parents of children in private schools. Just as parents can take a Child Care tax credit, that same incentive should be available to provide some relief for school-aged children in private schools.

My husband and I have made the choice to send all of our kids to a private christian school, and will continue that with them through high-school. The costs are ENORMOUS, but well worth the sacrifices.

Where should the money come from? I don't believe that the money for these tax credits/vouchers should be taken away from the public school system. Instead, there are a whole bunch of other wasteful government programs that these funds could be diverted from.

[Steeltrap]

I'm not a parent, so I can't believe that I'm talking about this.

I have a lot of ambivalence about this voucher business, and I'm still sorting it through, so I have no definite thoughts about whether it's bad or not.

But if I had children and if something were available like this, I would choose the suburban public school option, rather than the religious school option, unless the religious school was a well-established Episcopalian type one.

Honestly, voucher money doesn't seem to be enough to send kids to the type of private school I envision for any children I would have. I'm talking about the La Jolla Country Day, Francis Parker, Bishop's (all schools in my native San Diego) or Andover, Choate, Miss Porter's and Madeira schools. Those type of schools have history, great reputations and strong endowments.

Side topic -- I find all this fascinating because I participated in voluntary integration programs when I was in school and was bused away from my minority-neighborhood school.

[snuggles12]

If I lived in school district that I wasn't happy with, I would use a school voucher in a heartbeat to send my kids to private/charter/religious school. I listen to talk radio and this one host made a good point. I think in Milwaukee, school vouchers have been used for 10 years now. He stated that both public schools and the private/charter/religious schools have improved due to competition. Now I don't know if public schools in that city have improved but I do like the fact that if I am dissatified with the school district that I live in, I have a choice.

#7 Snuggles
DST - RVA 12/93

Originally posted by prayerfull
OK...I'm going to be in the minority on this one...and will probably take some heat...but remember, this is my honest, humble, personal opinion, which I am entitled to have...

I SUPPORT the school voucher program!!!

As a parent with 3 kids (2 of mine and 1 step son) in private school, I would really appreciate some type of tuition relief - not necessarily a "voucher", per se.

I support Bush's proposal to provide Tax Credits to parents of children in private schools. Just as parents can take a Child Care tax credit, that same incentive should be available to provide some relief for school-aged children in private schools.

My husband and I have made the choice to send all of our kids to a private christian school, and will continue that with them through high-school. The costs are ENORMOUS, but well worth the sacrifices.

Where should the money come from? I don't believe that the money for these tax credits/vouchers should be taken away from the public school system. Instead, there are a whole bunch of other wasteful government programs that these funds could be diverted from.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Steeltrap
I'm not a parent, so I can't believe that I'm talking about this.

Honestly, voucher money doesn't seem to be enough to send kids to the type of private school I envision for any children I would have. I'm talking about the La Jolla Country Day, Francis Parker, Bishop's (all schools in my native San Diego) or Andover, Choate, Miss Porter's and Madeira schools. Those type of schools have history, great reputations and strong endowments.

Those schools probably won't be accepting vouchers, but they have their own scholarship programs anyway.

The tuition for those school is more than some colleges approx. 20,000. Vouchers really wouldn't make a huge dent in the whole tuition.

[librasoul22]

I think we ALL would like the chance to send our children to the best school available. In that vein, vouchers sound like a lovely alternative to public schooling -- especially the distrcts with run-down, dilapidated schools with little-to-no resources. However, (and this is not directed at anyone here personally), I think it is rather selfish to neglect the needs of these very schools any further than we already are. That is what vouchers do. They deflect attention away from the schools that need it most and toward the delusions of grandeur surrounding private schooling (and by this, I simply mean the proposed outcome of these vouchers, not the private schools themselves).

Not to say, however, that the alternative is just to let your children stay at the schools with the sub-par conditions, but I just don't think vouchers are the answer. Maybe if the gov't spent more time, money, and effort on the public schools that need it most, we wouldn't have to worry this.

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


Those schools probably won't be accepting vouchers, but they have their own scholarship programs anyway.

The tuition for those school is more than some colleges approx. 20,000. Vouchers really wouldn't make a huge dent in the whole tuition.

My point exactly. That tuition figure that you quote is much more than my 'rents paid for me to go to USC, and I graduated 16 years ago. If I have a child, she will know scholarship resources backward and forward.

[Jody]

As a parent, that as a child never went to a public school, whose mother worked LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNGGGG hours to pay for a Catholic education for her children (my dad told her that if she wanted us to go to a Catholic school, she would have to pay for it), I am overjoyed at this ruling.

Clarification: The recent ruling only affected schools within the 11th Circuit, and the Pledge of Alegience (sp?!) is NOT mandatory. That means a student can sit in their chair while the pledge is being recited. What this ruling does is redistribute the taxes that CHRISTIANS and individuals who want their children to go to private schools currently pay. What I as a parent now have the opportunity to do is take the funds appropriated by the state and can CHOSE to use those funds in a public school or at a private shcool. If I had the option (I live in Florida) to send my child to a private school with a voucher, I would. In Florida, vouchers are only available if your child goes to a failing school.

[snuggles12]

You also need the parents to be involve in order to improve a school district. The government alone cannot fix the problem. IMHO, the problem with failing schools is bigger than just a lack of funds.

Originally posted by librasoul22
I think we ALL would like the chance to send our children to the best school available. In that vein, vouchers sound like a lovely alternative to public schooling -- especially the distrcts with run-down, dilapidated schools with little-to-no resources. However, (and this is not directed at anyone here personally), I think it is rather selfish to neglect the needs of these very schools any further than we already are. That is what vouchers do. They deflect attention away from the schools that need it most and toward the delusions of grandeur surrounding private schooling (and by this, I simply mean the proposed outcome of these vouchers, not the private schools themselves).

Not to say, however, that the alternative is just to let your children stay at the schools with the sub-par conditions, but I just don't think vouchers are the answer. Maybe if the gov't spent more time, money, and effort on the public schools that need it most, we wouldn't have to worry this.