Recently in school vouchers Category

Jay,

As one of the commentators on our blog stated, parent satisfaction does not define whether vouchers have been successful. So while I am sympathetic to parent testimony, it's hardly a reason for changing my stance.

I have cited and linked to three studies by the U.S. Department of Education specifically looking into the D.C. voucher program and they show without a doubt that this program has come up short. I can also cite studies of the Milwaukee and Cleveland school voucher programs that show students attending voucher schools perform no better in reading and math than kids who stay in public schools.  See these studies here and here.

It's also important to note that the Zelman case only addressed the U.S. Constitution and did not address state constitutional issues. Thirty-seven states have a church-state provision that is even stronger than the U.S. Constitution, and voucher programs have been struck down in some of those states. Most recently, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down two school voucher programs, finding they were in violation of the state Constitution's "no-aid" provision. This provision prohibits "appropriation of public money...in aid of any...private or sectarian school."

Jay, voucher programs are only going to make public schools suffer because tax money that would ordinarily go to public schools now pays for vouchers. Taking away precious funding hardly seems like a way to improve our public school system.

Barry, I don't believe that school vouchers run afoul of the First Amendment, and neither does the Supreme Court.  In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a school voucher case, the Supreme Court explained that its Establishment Clause jurisprudence makes it clear that:

 

where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice, the program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause.

 

Even in the majority opinion in Locke v. Davey, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, the Court recognized that "[u]nder our Establishment Clause precedent, the link between government funds and religious training is broken by the independent and private choice of recipients."