Starspun

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020805/ap_on_re_us/florida_school_vouchers_4" target="_blank">Florida Judge Strikes Down Voucher Law</a>

Bravo...

[Shortened link - hj]

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Buffman

After Monday's ruling, the governor said the state is prepared to find private money to help children attend private schools.

The Republican Legislature passed laws that would allow tax breaks for private companies that provided "educational gifts" to help students in failing public schools attend private (religious) schools.

Hmmmmm? Tax Breaks? Doesn't that mean that the state is still funneling taxpayer money into supporting a voucher program? If these companies are so concerned about education, then they should donate the funds without the incentive of a tax break for doing so.--- And in the case of the private (religious) schools, they do not have to meet any of the state mandated reports/controls established for the public schools. So how will the state determine which of these private schools are meeting the state mandated requirements that could cause them to be classified as "failing."

Will these private religious schools comply with state mandated educational standards? Should they? Would that not be a violation of the 1st Amendment? (To the best of my knowledge, those initial 50 students are attending Catholic schools in the Florida Panhandle...and those schools, justifiably, refuse to change their curriculum programs to meet a secular mandate.)

The Governor's and Republican Legislature's spin that money is only going to the parents of these voucher qualified students and not directly to any religious school, is about as transparent a religious canard as has ever been shoved down the throats of the voting public. Polls, conducted prior to the passage of the Voucher legislation, did not favor such legislation...but the block of Christian fundamentalists elected to office, as they are historical wont to arrogantly do, decided that they knew better. This is the same group of legislators that became so infamous in the last national election.

Stephen Maturin

Assuming the article's correct, the judge based his ruling on the state constitution. That's a smart move in light of Zelman. If the Florida Supreme Court affirms strictly on state law grounds, then SCOTUS can't touch it (assuming that the state constitutional provision passes the "adequate and independent state ground of decision" test).

Starspun

Great insight as usual Buffman. I didn't realize that private schools did not have to follow the cirriculum that are required in the public schools.
IMO, this is another reason this voucher idea is bad. I'm not saying the private schools would teach false material, but, we have to admit the door is open for abuse. One example would be evolution vs. ID in science. I realize in some public schools, ID is taught alongside evolution, but, this would allow the administration to disregard the facts of evolution altogether.

SM

Quote:

assuming that the state constitutional provision passes the "adequate and independent state ground of decision" test

Do you think it will pass?

Stephen Maturin

I suspect so, Starspun. States are free to adopt their own constitutions and to interpret them more broadly than the federal courts interpret similar provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The applicable provision of the Florida Constitution reads:

That's some of the most "separationist" language you'll ever see. Unless the Florida courts habitually disregard the highlighted language or interpret it with reference to federal Establishment Clause case law, there's no basis for U.S. Supreme Court review.

Starspun

Thanks for the information, Stephen. I will keep track of this issue. It is important to all of us.
I realize all states have their own constitution, but, could this set precendence(sp) with a judge interpreting his/her state constitution? If a judge is presented with a similar case in Iowa, could that judge use the Florida case in his interpretation or, will the judge have to remain blind to outside influences and rulings (other than SCOTUS)?

Buffman

<a href="http://www.au.org/vouchers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/vouchers.htm</a>

Stephen Maturin

As a general matter, there's nothing wrong with the courts of one state using decisions rendered by the courts of another state as "persuasive authority." However, that practice is problematic in the state constitutional law arena for several reasons. First, the establishment/religious freedom provisions of state constitutions differ greatly. Chances are good that the courts of State A won't find the decisions of State B's courts very persuasive if State B's courts are interpreting vastly different verbiage.

Second, in your hypothetical, the Iowa judge would be bound by Iowa Supreme Court precedent. If Iowa's high court established a test for resolving state law religious establishment claims, the trial judge is stuck with applying that test.

Third, many state courts read the religion provisions of their own constitutions as being essentially the same as those in the First Amendment. If Iowa is such a state, then the judge in your hypo would look to SCOTUS precedent first.

It'll be interesting to see how this Florida situation shakes out. If nothing else, the trial court's ruling undoubtedly frosted Jeb Bush's ass in a big way. That's a helluva good result all by itself.

Thanks for bringing the case to our attention!

hezekiah jones

I hope not. Do you know where this is the case?

Many states already do:

<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/lerner.html" target="_blank">Treatment of Biological Evolution ... in State K-12 Science Standards</a>

In addition to not conforming to public school curricula, as far as I know, voucher schools in the Milwaukee program do not even have to report to what areas of their own curricula they are allocating the money.

Also voucher schools can cherry-pick their students, unlike the public schools which must admit every kid regardless of his/her "special needs."

Alonzo Fyfe

I must confess that I do not see school vouchers per se as a church/state issue. In fact, I like school vouchers.

With some caveats, of course. There should be some state standards that must apply, and the state should not allow voucher money to be used by a school that does not meet those standards. For upper level students, this should include a proper understanding of biology -- including evolution.

But the issue here is not over vouchers themselves, but over certification of schools and state standards.

Some of the objections that I have heard are:

95% of the money goes to religious schools.

So? If we were to discover that 95% of the books checked out of a public library were religious text, would this justify closing the library? As long as other books are available, the fact that a large percentage of the population choose the religious option is their right.

Or if 95% of the money went to private secular schools, because people valued a secular education over alternatives, that would not be seen as a problem.

If atheists want to compete on this ground, then the proper step would not be to stop the voucher program, but to build secular schools and go into competition.


private schools can pick and choose, while public schools must take everybody.

Actually, I think public schools should be dividing students up according to their abilities, and offer different types of instructions based on student abilities. This distinction now is based almost exclusively on age, but age is not a reliable measure of ability -- and true ability should be the method for distinguishing among different classes. The public school system will still likely get the majority of students, and will have sufficient students to form his its own advanced schools.


My tax money is being used to support religion.

My tax money is also used to support religion when a state employee tithes a certain percentage of his income to his church, or gives it to some tele-evangelist. Yet it would not be sensible to argue that the government should not hire employees likely to spend money on religious items.

What I pay for with my taxes is to fund public education -- for children to acquire a certain level of basic knowledge -- the child's ability to pass a test. If a private school is able to accomplish that, then it is irrelevant if, at the same time, the children in that school are also learning a religion that I may not agree with. That is outside of the scope for which I pay my taxes. The only thing that I really have a right to demand of the private school is that they do what the public school would have done.

Ultimately, there is one argument against vouchers that carries some weight with me.

Tax money will be used to teach children to hate.

If the private school is not also teaching good citizenship, teaching those children to be intolerant of rather than tolerant of those who believe differently than they do, then the voucher system is a bad idea. I don't mind if the school being funded in part with my tax dollars instills a peaceful belief in God. But if it instills a belief that all atheists should be driven from the country, then I have grounds for complaint.

I would hold a similar objection to vouchers being used to fund a neo-NAZI institution that worshipped Hitler and called for a second holocaust, or a KKK school that taught the need to segretate the races.

No such school of this type should be able to appeal to the 1st amendment to claim that they have a right to funding -- it serves a valid state interest to bar such schools from receiving tax money.

But, again, the problem here is not with the voucher system, but with the procedure for certifying which schools will get the money.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>