DeSantis--School Vouchers For All!

Really, Because there are many private schools that are significantly better at getting their students into a good college. So you are wrong there. SOME private schools are terrible, just like there are terrible public schools. Not surprising. Give people a choice. Everyone wins.

 

If both are interpreted correctly, that's not possible, but that also doesn't tell me much. I said you're incorrectly interpreting it.

You're incorrectly interpreting the Establishment Clause. You think private individuals choosing to send their kids to religious school (despite having the ability to choose any religious or non-religious school) violates the Establishment Clause.

 

My first reaction is no.

You want take an underfunded system that is struggling and then create new funding for a system currently running on the wealth of its student and then siphon off money to said wealthy system.

Go back a decade or two. Charter schools were going to save us all. Create a new innovative system. Damn it that the testing data doesn’t validate the new system. Well now, lets double down on that but send money to groups that don’t need it.

Now logically, either money will be simply supplanted and absorbed (or private entities will raise their rates and keep the same population) or we will have to build a bunch of new private schools since the current ones run at capacity. We could call the new schools, what, charter schools?

yes I am playing devils advocate, but the math doesn’t work, or course this could just be another stunt without an actual plan.

 

Do you agree or disagree that men can get pregnant?

 

I guess the conservative critique of entrenched bureaucracies and dependence on handouts that come with all social programs doesnt apply here, you can quit anytime you want.

 

Unless they rule that whatever the Florida Legislature says is "well-funded" goes, which is what I'd expect this group to do.

 

1. It's not possible under any interpretation. The mine-run free exercise case does not implicate the Establishment Clause.
2. That's not my interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

 

If the handouts are for children who bear no responsibility for their current financial predicament... and so those same children will grow so they won't need handouts in the future, I think a lot of Republicans find that to be an exception.

 

who has standing to bring these issues to the court?

 

Get your point about the Establishment Clause. But what about the specific provision in the Florida Constitution which prohibits taking funds from public treasury to indirectly or directly aid sectarian institutions? Trying to think what the arguments are there. Does the word "sectarian" only apply if a private school is affiliated with a specific denomination (e.g. Methodist or Baptist) as opposed to being generically Christian? Or is the argument that the Florida provision is itself unconstitutional or unenforceable under the U.S. Constitution? Or maybe the argument is that it's not the government spending the money since the parents can arguably find various options?

 

I disagree with this. I think it's actually very easy. For example, let's say someone thinks that a voucher program in itself is a violation of the Establishment Clause because some vouchers are used on religious schools.

Now let's take that logic a step further and say that anyone who receives government money cannot spend that money to practice their religion.

I think that's a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause characterized as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Stretch that logic out to a government employee receiving all of his income via the government, and it's even easier. At such a point, we will have strayed from any honest and reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, but that is AN interpretation.

Thanks, had trouble squaring the comment you quoted with this one:

 

Education as panacea, yet another liberal shibboleth you are embracing

 

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I think that's the best argument here.

It's the classic Christmas tree in a government building hypothetical. Government buildings can have Christmas trees, but if someone requests a showing of a non-Christian religion as well, they can't favor one religion over another. So their choice is featuring both or neither.

 

To put a finer point on this, the prep schools that people imagine when talking about "private schools" don't just let in whoever has the cash to pay the tuition. You actually have to apply, your chances are often slim, and there is no requirement that they explain why they've denied you.

The parents and admin at these schools wouldn't and won't be caught dead with anyone who actually needs a voucher. It doesn't fit with their goals, culture, or mission. Even the existing lower-end private schools (that serve the upper middle class instead of the upper class) will pocket the vouchers and raise tuition to block out the lower class, which is already happening:

Florida’s new voucher law allows private schools to boost revenue

At the same time, though, Gibbons said it was important that families pay a portion of the cost ”so we don’t just become another public school where the government is funding the education.”

“We want and we need parents who are fully invested,” he said in the video. “If you’re not giving anything in terms of a financial investment in the school, I just have a sense it’s going to change our culture too dramatically.”​

In terms of expanding choice, all this will realistically do is prompt the creation of unaccredited schools expressly created to milk voucher funds. Like charters, but with even less accountability or oversight.

Heck, the biggest immediate effect is likely to be charters converting to private schools so they can get the same funding without accountability or oversight.

Two-thirds of the academy’s students failed the state exams last year, and only a third of them were making any academic progress at all. The school had had four principals in three years, and teacher turnover was high, too.
***
The district terminated the academy’s charter contract. Surprisingly, Orange Park didn’t shut down — and even found a way to stay on the public dime. It reopened last month as a private school charging $5,000 a year, below the $5,886 maximum that low-income students receive to attend the school of their choice under a state voucher program. Academy officials expect all of its students to pay tuition with the publicly backed coupons.​

 

The average free exercise case involves the government telling a religious person they can't do something. Outside of certain contexts (public employment, public funding, etc.), the Establishment Clause is generally not implicated.

For example, if the federal government passed a law tomorrow that shut down every private house of worship in the United States, that would clearly violate the Free Exercise Clause, but it would not implicate the Establishment Clause. I can't see how any interpretation of the Establishment Clause could ever fully cancel out the Free Exercise Clause.

Now, there are cases where both clauses come into play. Oftentimes, the Establishment Clause does win. But I think it's reasonable to say that a person who is a government employee shouldn't be able to use their government employment to force their religious beliefs on to others.

I was speaking of Carson v. Makin, a case I strongly disagree with. If a state wants to offer public funding to everybody and make religious organizations eligible for it, that should not be unconstitutional, as long as the religious organizations aren't treated better than secular organizations. However, the Establishment Clause should empower states to be able to reserve funding for only secular organizations if it so chooses.

Now, obviously, a state can't discriminate against certain religions. It can't say, "I'm making funding available for secular organizations and Islam, but not Christianity and Judaism." That would be unconstitutional. It can either make funding available to only secular organizations or make funding available to all.

 

I can imagine some dubious investors lining up to open learning facilities with the promise of 8k per student. Just find an empty spot in a strip mall, hire some staff, recruit some customers with the help of a C/D list celeb or local notable, and let the money roll in until it falls apart.

 

As you rightly point out, that is a horse of a different color. I'd have to look into how Florida has interpreted that clause. I think the dispositive question would be whether it prohibits only direct funding or both direct and indirect funding. And yes, there would be the question in the aftermath of Carson v. Makin if the provision can be constitutionally applied here.

 

Guv does not regulate private schools. It does regulate guv housing (see HUD). That's the big diff. I don't know about drugs. Your point about DeSantis and empathy points does not play.

 

Correct, but I think that's a separate issue.

I was more getting into a government employee using their salary money to donate to a church for example.

And I know that's an extreme and easy example where we probably agree, but that's the point. You CAN have such a dishonest interpretation of the Establishment Clause that it basically writes out the Free Exercise Clause.

I don't think that's true.

I think that the state can't discriminate against you specifically because you are religious, and the state can't favor one religion over another. But that doesn't mean the state can't fund one organization that happens to be religious instead of another for reasons that are entirely secular and non-discriminatory (on the basis of religion).