School Choice is on the March!

[MachineGhost]

The Court’s decision marks the end of the unions’ lawsuit, which was filed in June 2011.  There can be no appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because the Indiana Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the meaning of the state constitution.  It also means that the approximately 9,000 children who are currently benefiting from Choice Scholarships can remain in the schools their parents have selected for them.  Moreover, with the legal threat to the program eliminated, the door is open for all families eligible for the program—approximately 62 percent of Indiana families—to use Choice Scholarships in the 2013-14 school year.  This would make the program the largest school choice program in the nation.

In rejecting [all of] the argument of the plaintiffs [including the ACLU] that the Choice Scholarship Program improperly benefits private religious schools, the Court held that the program “provide(s) lower-income Indiana families with the educational options generally available primarily to higher-income Indiana families.  The result is a direct benefit to these lower-income families—the provision of a wider array of education options, a valid secular purpose.  Any benefit to program-eligible schools, religious or non-religious, derives from the private, independent choice of the parents of program-eligible students, not the decree of the state, and is thus ancillary and incidental to the benefit conferred on these families.”?

[rocketdog]

The court's decision is all well and good, but to say it serves a "valid secular purpose" begs the question: How many non-public schools are secular?  The court appears to have turned a blind eye to the fact that religious schools will be getting the lion's share of the windfall due to this ruling. 

I'm all for freedom of choice, especially with regard to the dismal public schools many kids are stuck with.  But there needs to be sufficient alternatives, so time will tell if this ruling spurs the creation of additional secular private schools. 

[notsheigetz]

The court's decision is all well and good, but to say it serves a "valid secular purpose" begs the question: How many non-public schools are secular?  The court appears to have turned a blind eye to the fact that religious schools will be getting the lion's share of the windfall due to this ruling. 

I'm all for freedom of choice, especially with regard to the dismal public schools many kids are stuck with.  But there needs to be sufficient alternatives, so time will tell if this ruling spurs the creation of additional secular private schools.

I don't get why it even has to serve a "valid secular purpose" to be constitutional. I don't see those words in the constitution but I do see something specifically about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[rocketdog]

The court's decision is all well and good, but to say it serves a "valid secular purpose" begs the question: How many non-public schools are secular?  The court appears to have turned a blind eye to the fact that religious schools will be getting the lion's share of the windfall due to this ruling. 

I'm all for freedom of choice, especially with regard to the dismal public schools many kids are stuck with.  But there needs to be sufficient alternatives, so time will tell if this ruling spurs the creation of additional secular private schools.

I don't get why it even has to serve a "valid secular purpose" to be constitutional. I don't see those words in the constitution but I do see something specifically about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

But you do see the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." 

This is beside the point, because this case is at the state level, not the federal level, so the 1st Amendment doesn't restrict the states' actions in the same way that it does the Fed's. 

[murphy_p_t]

This is really encouraging...that power will go from bureaucrats, teachers unions, school districts...and be shifted where it belongs...in the hands of those who care most for children...the parents.

[Pointedstick]

This is beside the point, because this case is at the state level, not the federal level, so the 1st Amendment doesn't restrict the states' actions in the same way that it does the Fed's.

Actually, it does. The 14th amendment's "due process" clause incorporated the 1st against the states in Everson v. Board of Education. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v ... _Education