Florida's Opportunity Scholarship school voucher program, which provides roughly a $4,000 yearly stipend to the parents of children who are attending failing public schools for the purpose of sending them to a private school, is being challenged before the Florida Supreme Court today. (SEE HERE) The program is of limited scope as only students who attend double F public schools are eligible to qualify. To date, only 741 students have taken advantage of vouchers. However, as Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas POINTS out, if the Opportunity Scholarship program is found unconstitutional other voucher programs such as the McKay Scholarship Program which serves over 12,000 students may also be found unconsitutional, along with the newly enacted pre-K program and perhaps the Bright Futures scholarship program.
The most likely ground for a finding of unconstitutionality is Art I, Sect. 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[n]o revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or inderectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." It is likely that the state will defend the voucher program by drawing a distinction that the money is not going to aid the sectarian institutions (religious schools) but rather to aid students who control where the money is spent and are free to go to a non-religious private school. I would also expect the state to argue that since Art I, Sect. 3 begins with a statement prohibiting laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, this language should be considered the overarching purpose of the section and must be read in conjunction with the prohibition against state funds. Thus, the argument would be that the voucher program does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion, is not provided for the purpose of benefiting a sectarian instution, and thus is constitutionally permissible.
My job does not permit me to comment too strongly on an issue such as this, but let me say that I was struck by the large pro-voucher demonstration that I viewed outside my office window this morning. It had probably close to 2,000 people taking part, and racial minorities were the predominant protestors. To the extent that we continue to spend our money for new schools by placing them in affluent (largely white) neighborhoods, at some point we must provide access to high quality education for less affluent (and often more diverse) populations. Simply saying "public education is great and nothing is wrong" is not satisfactory. At least the protestors outside my window this morning don't think so. And I tend to agree with them.
1 comment:
(Tom E.) The Teachers’ Unions (and the ACLU who oppose vouchers) are simply protecting their extraordinary power to control much of what is taught to virtually every American child. I think it is beyond question that the education our children receive in government-monopoly schools is, with few exceptions, abysmal. Teachers’ Unions exercise much more control over the content and process of public education than, say, the UAW over the output of GM. They are largely responsible for the failure and continued decline of public education, and the introduction into the curricula of what can only be described as left-wing propaganda. Their motives to maintain power are mirrored by the goals of the co-founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, who said, “I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” It is ominous to see how avowed enemies of American freedom continue to control much of what happens in public education.
Post a Comment