Supreme Court Rules Vouchers to Be Constitutional!

[KrazyHorse]

If we had a real voucher system that gives genuine opportunity for the poor

Exactly. **** giving people who can afford 10 000$p.a. for each of their kids an extra 2500$ p.a.

With 3 kids 10 000$ p.a. adds up to 30 000$, which is just about the median income for the US, IIRC. I'm sure that this means reducing the cost to 22 500 via vouchers will really give the average American student the opportunity to go to school, leaving his parents with 7 500 $ to clothe, feed and shelter their entire family.

[Ned]

Below is a quote from the Syllabus of the opinion. It briefly discusses the actual program before the court and why the program passes constitutional muster.

It is clear that the Ohio program offers Clevelands parents a real chance for a quality education for their kids, If this is the true objective of education, then that program is a good program.

Note the plan offers twice as much money and no co-payment obligation if the scholarship money is used in a public school.

With twice the money and no-copayment obligation, public schools that offer even some semblence of quality education should do well.

The instant program is one of true private choice, consistent with the Mueller line of cases, and thus constitutional. It is neutral in all respects towards religion, and is part of Ohio’s general and multifaceted undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children in a failed school district. It confers educational assistance directly to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion and permits participation of all district schools—religious or nonreligious—and adjacent public schools. The only preference in the program is for low-income families, who receive greater assis-tance and have priority for admission. Rather than creating financial incentives that skew it towards religious schools, the program creates financial disincentives: Private schools receive only half the govern-ment assistance given to community schools and one-third that given to magnet schools, and adjacent public schools would receive two to three times that given to private schools. Families too have a finan-cial disincentive, for they have to copay a portion of private school tuition, but pay nothing at a community, magnet, or traditional pub-lic school. No reasonable observer would think that such a neutral private choice program carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement. Nor is there evidence that the program fails to provide genuine opportunities for Cleveland parents to select secular educa-tional options: Their children may remain in public school as before, remain in public school with funded tutoring aid, obtain a scholarship and choose to attend a religious school, obtain a scholarship and choose to attend a nonreligious private school, enroll in a community school, or enroll in a magnet school. The Establishment Clause ques-tion whether Ohio is coercing parents into sending their children to religious schools must be answered by evaluating all options Ohio provides Cleveland schoolchildren, only one of which is to obtain a scholarship and then choose a religious school. Cleveland’s prepon-derance of religiously affiliated schools did not result from the pro-gram, but is a phenomenon common to many American cities. Eighty-two percent of Cleveland’s private schools are religious, as are 81% of Ohio’s private schools. To attribute constitutional significance to the 82% figure would lead to the absurd result that a neutral school-choice program might be permissible in parts of Ohio where the percentage is lower, but not in Cleveland, where Ohio has deemed such programs most sorely needed. Likewise, an identical private choice program might be constitutional only in States with a lower percentage of religious private schools. Respondents’ addi-tional argument that constitutional significance should be attached to the fact that 96% of the scholarship recipients have enrolled in re-ligious schools was flatly rejected in Mueller. The constitutionality of a neutral educational aid program simply does not turn on whether and why, in a particular area, at a particular time, most private schools are religious, or most recipients choose to use the aid at a re-ligious school. Finally, contrary to respondents’ argument, Commit-tee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756—a case that expressly reserved judgment on the sort of program chal-lenged here—does not govern neutral educational assistance pro-grams that offer aid directly to a broad class of individuals defined without regard to religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, guys... this ruling was dealing with Cleveland's voucher system and that city. This other voucher stuff are things that never will get passed, federally, because the Democrats are in the pockets of the Teachers' Unions.

No matter what your views on vouchers, I think most would agree that the public school monopoly isn't doing too well and something needs to be done.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, guys... this ruling was dealing with Cleveland's voucher system and that city. This other voucher stuff are things that never will get passed, federally, because the Democrats are in the pockets of the Teachers' Unions.

No matter what your views on vouchers, I think most would agree that the public school monopoly isn't doing too well and something needs to be done.

Imran, Dare you speak the truth? Even the Democrats clothe their arguments in pro-education attire. This is not really about unionized education vs. non union education is it?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How about making it like the financial aid system for college? You have to apply for it and it is disbursed based upon need.

a good idea

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is not really about unionized education vs. non union education is it?

[Adam Smith]

When students transfer out they take both their per capita funding and virtually all of their per capita expenses with them, so there is little or no net loss of resources to public schools. The available data indicate that introducing vouchers improves the performance of students in both private and public schools. Much of this research was done by CAROLINE HOXBY, a professor of Economics at that well-known bastion of conservative thinking, Harvard University. Hoxby was runner up for this year's John Bates Clark Award, given by the American Economics Association to the best American economist under 40.

edit: typos

[Ned]

Adam, Such thinking will doom the defense of the status quo. I believe many states will now join Ohio with voucher programs. This will undoubtedly be a major issue in upcoming elections with Democrats being in the position of being "conservative" stick-in-the muds and the Republicans being the progressive thinkers. Real liberalism will win again.

[KrazyHorse]

When students transfer out they take both their per capita funding and their virtually all of their per capita expenses with them, so there is little or no net loss of resources to public schools. The available data indicate that introducing vouchers improves the performance of students in both private and public schools

My argument isn't against immediate impact of loss of asses in seats, but against eventual impact. Like I said: the parents whose kids have moved into private schools still get votes on how much cash the school gets. If this was guaranteed not to negatively impact on those left behind then I'd be fine with it...

[DanS]

Jeez, some people here have an odd concept of reality. Catholic schools are already filled with poor kids and they seem to do very well with them. The word gets around on the street that they are good schools, so a ton of poor parents bust their asses to put their kids in there. They'll talk with the school and see if accomodations can be made (which they most often are). To hear some here talk, everybody in a parochial school is rich. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Further, vouchers pose absolutely no threat to public education as an institution. In most cases, they are so narrowly focused to the worst performing inner-city schools. Why wouldn't we want to cut our losses and almost guarantee a good education for $10k over 4 years, knowing that jail cells cost $30k a year to maintain?

[KrazyHorse]

I know that not everyone in a parochial school is rich, but if we were to see an explosion in the number of private-school students, it would probably drive the price up (charitable resources would get strained to max).

DanS, the electorate has very short sight. They'd rather pay for bars than books, IMO.

[DanS]

Why would we see an explosion in the number of private school students? The inner city schools are just a small portion of the overall schools.

Not trusting the electorate in a democracy is just the stupidest thing in the world to do. The electorate has seen fit to pay over $9k per pupil in the DC public schools for year after unsuccessful year. By all rights, this should be enough to get the job done, and now the taxpayers want an accounting.

[KrazyHorse]

Those taxpayers are also parents. They want books for their own kids, bars for everybody else's.

I trust the electorate, Dan. I have no urge to live in an autocratic state, no matter how well-intentioned, but I also think that there are some things a society has to stand together on, and one of those is education. We can't afford to have a society where half that precious electorate is completely ignorant...

[DanS]

So much rides on the quality of public education, even for those who don't send their kids to public schools. You are being shortsighted in thinking that these parents don't understand this and vote accordingly.

Edit: again, it isn't half of the electorate in the US, it's half of the electorate from our worst inner city schools.

[Tingkai]

There's a major flaw in the voucher system. If everyone gets a voucher then everyone has the same ability to get into the good schools. The good schools will need some method for choosing which students to take. They'll do that by a) charging more money for tuition in which case the best schools become limited to the well off, or b) by some type of entrance exam.

If the schools use entrance exams, then parents will focus on preparing their kids for the exams. That's fine at the Grade 12 level trying to get into university, but with the voucher system if you want your kid to get into a good high school then the kid will need to get into a good primary school. So we end up with the absurd situation of making kindergarten kids take entrance exams.

This actually happens in Hong Kong. Little four-year-old kids take entrance exams.

In an education system where entrance exams are all important, rote learning takes precedence over teaching kids to be creative. You end up with a situation like Hong Kong where people are very good at reciting information, but terrible at thinking about creative solutions.

One last point that people should remember. The American education system, despite all of its problems, is relatively very good compared to schools throughout the world. The United States produces far more brilliant people per capita than most countries.