Rethinking Schools Online. Justices hear oral arguments in a case with broad implications not just for education but the separation of church and state and the very definition of public vesus private in a democratic society. By Barbara Miner. WASHINGTON, D. C. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Feb. Neas, president of People for the American Way Foundation, said the day of the arguments. This year, vouchers are being given to 4,2.
The legal heart of the matter is whether the program violates the U. S. Cases involving church/state separation are some of the most legally complicated and nuanced, and the more than 2. Court endlessly dissected and parsed previous decisions to find support. The Justices themselves are divided on the matter, and staked out key positions in the oral arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer focused on how a voucher system of education would be seen as government endorsement of religion. He posed the hypothetical situation in which . Wouldn't you then say, in the United States of America .. It's a monopoly problem. The other side, organized by the NAACP and People for the American Way, argued that tax dollars should be used for public schools open to all children and responsible to the public at large. Vouchers have been a bedrock of the conservative education agenda and its goals of privatizing the public education system and of providing tax dollars for religious education. The ability to move that agenda forward has been hampered by the legal cloud hanging over vouchers, however. In December 1. 99. Cleveland voucher program violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision a year later. To the extent one can predict Supreme Court decisions, four justices are seen as likely to uphold the Appeals Court and declare the Cleveland program unconstitutional: Justices Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. Four justices are seen as sympathetic to vouchers and willing to declare the Cleveland program constitutional: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Scalia. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is seen as the crucial swing vote, and she was most active in questioning attorneys on both sides of the issue. Many observers expect the Court to issue a narrow legal opinion that speaks specifically to the Cleveland situation. But even a narrow opinion would carry enormous political weight. Supreme Court will decide in its new term whether the U.S. Constitution permits government tuition vouchers to be used at religious schools. Cleveland's tuition voucher program debated. Cleveland's School Vouchers Weighed by. Ohio program meets the objections the court had. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not. Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to. If the Court declares the Cleveland program constitutional, voucher plans will likely proliferate at the local, state, and national level, taking needed resources and energy away from reforms to improve public education. Just as clearly, a decision striking down the Cleveland program will be a setback to the voucher movement, making it less likely that politicians will put their efforts into voucher plans that would end up in the courts. KEY LEGAL ISSUESIn a highly unusual move underscoring the case's importance, oral arguments were extended beyond the usual 6. Each side was given 4. Three lawyers argued in support of the state of Ohio and its voucher program - including the Bush Administration's Solicitor General, Theodore Olson; two argued against. A decision is expected before the Court's term ends in June. The justices will look at two key questions to decide whether the Cleveland program is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. One involves whether the Cleveland program is . The other involves whether the voucher money can be considered government aid to religious schools or whether it is government aid to parents, who make private, individual decisions on where to use the money. Because 9. 9. 4 percent of the Cleveland voucher students attend religious schools, it is difficult to argue the program is . Several justices, in particular O'Connor, at times seemed to operate under the assumption that the community schools are private schools, even to the point of charging tuition. Why shouldn't they be considered? They are public schools. O'Connor was also troubled by the broad religious sweep of the Cleveland program and the fact that voucher schools imbue their religious mission into all aspects of education. She noted, for instance, that . There have been other federal programs, for example, where there have been such limitations on usage. There's none of that here. He argued that government neutrality toward religion is necessary but not sufficient for the program to pass constitutional muster, and that one must also look at the program's effect. That, I think, is the sticking point here. Justice Souter, for his part, countered that . Voucher supporters used this nondiscriminatory measure to bolster the educational, secular purposes of the Cleveland program..- arguing that a significant percentage of voucher students at religious schools are not of the same faith but attend for educational, not religious, reasons. In an example of how the justices can use facts for their own purposes, Justice Souter turned the matter on its head and said this may enhance the proselytizing mission of the schools: . If the Court accepts that there is no government endorsement because parents are making decisions, that reasoning can extend to all parents regardless of income. Voucher opponents generally have been unsuccessful in exposing the voucher movement's cynical use of low- income parents to build pressure for a voucher agenda whose ultimate goal is universal vouchers for all parents - regardless of whether they are rich or poor, urban or suburban. While the perception is that the Cleveland voucher program is targeted toward African Americans, the reverse is true. African Americans constitute 7. Cleveland public schools, yet they account for only 5. Whites, meanwhile, make up 1. Cleveland public school students but 2. Furthermore, recent research by the group Policy Matters Ohio found that only 2. Cleveland public school in the year before enrolling in the voucher program. Comparable figures are difficult to obtain in Milwaukee because the state office overseeing the voucher program does not collect such data due to concerns about government . If the Court upholds Cleveland, vouchers plans will blossom. Even if the Court strikes down Cleveland, voucher supporters will use the decision as a blueprint to build a new, more legally palatable voucher initiative. Visit Rethinking Schools Online, (www. The Ohio School Voucher Case. Some commentators have called this one. Based. upon an income factor, families could qualify for up to $2,2. Cleveland district, qualified community. State but run by their own school. At one. point, 9. Forty- six of the 5. For the 2. 00. 1- 2. Catholic. schools, and $1,2. We. represented, on a pro bono basis, two Lutheran school associations. Cleveland Catholic Diocese, along with several other secular. Petitioner status to intervene as. One can only speculate as. This fact was not lost. Court as both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia raised questions. Consequently, as found by the majority, the Ohio program. The opposition arguments. Much publicity in the Cleveland media centered on the fear. Ultimately, this case is a victory of choice for. Christian education has always been a strong aspect. Lutheran heritage. Martin Luther, in his Address to the. German Nobility in 1. Christian education: . At all levels of American society we. God and religion. Rather than a. nation . The resultant consequences are. Religious schools, not just Christian schools, have. Without the. acknowledgment of our sinful nature and the need for a forgiving. God to establish a moral code of conduct, we have little chance of. Because of the. establishment of our Lutheran schools and other religious schools. Cleveland area and because of this landmark decision by the. Supreme Court of the United States thousands of impoverished. Cleveland (and, hopefully, elsewhere in our nation) now.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |