This is a thoughtful analysis of the dreadful voucher decision in Indiana yesterday.
It says, “The plaintiffs in the voucher case alleged the program violates three sections of the Indiana Constitution: Article 8, Section 1, which requires a “general and uniform system of Common Schools”; Article 1, Section 4, which says citizens can’t be forced to support a place of worship or ministry; and Article 1, Section 6, which forbids spending state money to support a “religious or theological institution.”
In a 5-0 decision, the state court rejected their case.
The schools getting the vouchers may require students to participate in religious exercise, and they typically do.
The schools getting vouchers may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin, “But they are free to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, test scores, IQ, family income, parental politics or just about any other criteria you can imagine.”
It is hard to square this decision with the language of the state constitution.
The radical choice ideologues in Indiana don’t like public education. Left in power, they will destroy it.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Agreed that sending public funds to private and parochial k-12 schools is a bad idea.
Holy crap- they are going to to take us back to the 1950’s……this is scary
Is there going to be an appeal?
Dottie: exactly my reaction. And if there is, to whom do I send a donation o help cover the costs?
Adios, 21st century. We’re going back to the bad old days of seperate but equal.
We have vouchers in FL, but only for special ed kids. Diane has posted articles about some of the awful private “schools” where some of these kids end up. There is no oversight or requirements for these “schools” that get vouchers. I guess Indiana isn’t learning from FL’s mistakes. Either that, or getting a sound education isn’t the true goal behind vouchers.
Brace yourself, Florida…..you have now the guy who started all the stuff here in Indiana! (Tony Bennett)
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but is there a conspicuous silence from MSNBC on these types of issues? I don’t watch the station all the time, but cannot remember any sustained discussion of a public education issue.
Why would you ever watch MSNBC.? They have nothing but charter propaganda and hype. I remember when Chris Matthews bashed teachers one day and I never watched again.
As I continue to say we are a “Lawless Society.” The California Supreme Court just the other day decided that costs of litigation on special education cases must be disclosed by school districts as that money is not their personal money but the publics. Within hours our contacts in Sacramento are revealing that behind the lines they are planning what is called a “Gut and Amend” (G & A) to a bill at the last minute with no discussion to wipe out that decision. Gut and Amend is a process in which a bill which has been through discussions in committees before passing the legislation is gutted and amended with language which has nothing to do with the original legislation. This is a common practice. Go look at what they do in Washington, D.C. all the time with “Pork.”
The vouchers that were deemed constitutional on Tuesday are just a part of the political agenda of the ALEC backed GOP in Indiana. Add to that Mike Pence, our new governor is setting himself up for a run for president in 2016 and he needs this for his “credentials.” Just recently the GOP has not even tried to put up the thin veil of needing vouchers for economically disadvantaged students. They have just opened it up to any family with an income as high as the upper 80K. Indiana State Representative Bob Behning, chairman of House Education Committee (a florist by trade) publicly stated that vouchers were for the purpose of providing families a choice, and a way out of public schools. Indiana has had “choice” since 20010 when the state went from a property tax based funding system to a general fund that is distributed statewide based on student enrollment. Students may enroll in any public school outside of their home school district without paying a tuition. These vouchers are nothing more than the Mitch Daniels, Tony Bennett plan to privatize public schools, eliminate teacher’s unions, generate profits for education corporations(one state rep is a marketing manager for the College Board). The bonus for these voucher supporters is that this whole system will segregate the schools once more, schools that Indianapolis and Gary worked so hard to de-segregate all through the 60s, 70s and 80s. Public education took a hard hit to the stomach on Tuesday and will get beat up even more before this legislative session ends in April. Worst yet, is there is little that can be done, with the entire state legislature controlled by the GOP and the most worthless, ignorant, do-nothing governor that would make George Bush look brilliant in office.
I personally, would like my granddaughter to be able to attend Mass every day in a school for which her parents had a voucher to permit her to go there. I don’t necessarily believe that religion necessarily generates virtue, but my opinion is I’d much rather have her at Mass than having her mind contaminated with what I consider the hoax of global warming and the utopian mush of socialism. I’m glad to see the Indiana Supreme Court ruling as it did on vouchers, and look forward to a similar expansion in Michigan. In its day the common school movement was a wonderful idea, but then the public schools were captured by socialist and communist and global warmist ideology, and thus destroyed their own credibility by not teaching individual responsibility, competition, and capitalism. I don’t know what you’re whining about. You can’t really deny what your actual government philosophy IS these days. A majority of citizens do NOT believe in statist conceptions of life, even though Obama was reelected, and although the margin of their preponderance is not large, within the individual states it prevails. Keep fighting. It’s a noble contest. But the religious, and semi-religious, and even non-religious do not want their beautiful children’s minds soaked in materialist myths; they prefer the old fashioned kind, and in that appeal to Hispanics rests my hope.
Well, Harlan, you just confirmed your citizenship in fantasyland. The so-called political agenda that you “believe” is stressed in public schools doesn’t exist. I teach mostly European history. We spend a single day on communism since it’s important to modern Europe (what with the Soviet Union) and we spend a day on Adam Smith’s free market economic system.
Every Marxist discussion we have after that focuses on the reasons for the failure of communism. From Lenin’s NEP to Stalin’s Five-Year Plans to the low standard of living behind the Iron Curtain. It’s safe to say that my students walk out the door with plenty of reasons for the failure of communism. And in a public school at that!
Vouchers don’t work as has been demonstrated before. I suppose that many could call your religious beliefs myths as well. (By the way, try teaching the Reformation to a diverse group of students. No easy task.)
Thank you, Steve, for affirming that you stick to real history. If you read this blog, most of the posters are not so balanced. I’m sure there is responsible history teaching going on here and there, but I suspect even you are tolerant of the global warming hoax, of social democracy, of the “need” for a public education system. You hear the discussions in your faculty room. You saw the recent news stories about the adjunct Communications instructor at Florida Atlantic who invited his students to write Jesus on a piece of paper and then stomp on it, and of the one super serious Mormon who refused to do so. I have an inkling of what that instructor was probably trying to do, but the media have picked it up and drawn a simplified conclusion. Nevertheless, you know that there is a sizable bundle of public school teachers who would be happy to do that and MEAN it. You know, the anti-church pro-abortion feminists. You know what teachers’ opinions are. As for choosing between myths, I guess I prefer the ones with hope to them rather than the ones foisted on us by the emotionally hopeless and angry. Even crazy old Rudolph Steiner has redemptive aspects compare to the Marxian myth.
You really have no clue what teachers teach day to day. I don’t know where you get your ideas unless it is some kooky radio station or something.
An excerpt from the Schools Matter article referenced in Diane’s post:
(From the Indiana Constitution:) “Article 1, Section 4, which says citizens can’t be forced to support a place of worship or ministry; and Article 1, Section 6, which forbids spending state money to support a ‘religious or theological institution.’”
“The key issue, arguably, was the third. Almost all the schools enrolling voucher students are Christian schools. Many describe themselves as ministries. As mentioned above, they typically require students to participate in worship. If giving them state money doesn’t violate Article 1, Section 6, what does?”
An excellent question. There seems to be no line here. It reminds me of the “single object” argument in the Louisiana constitution (That a piece of legislation can have only a single object– the idea being that legislators need to be able to either agree or disagree with the legislation– and they cannot clearly do so if legislation has multiple objects). The reform set argues that the “single object” is “education.” If that is the case,if the law can be interpreted so broadly, then what is the point of the parameter set in the constitution?
A Christian school is an institution that is theological/religious. Period.
I wonder how well this loose interpretation of the Indiana constitution would go over if the schools were Muslim? Hindu? Wiccan?
And are the justices assuming that children attending Christian schools should be granted only partial rights under their constitution? This is a dangerous interpretation. It has opened the door to potential child abuse.
Clearly the 5 -0 vote reflects a willingness of the indiana Supreme Court justices to blatantly ignore the word of law in favor of something else (personal bias? personal favors?).
I am sorry to read this news.
The trick here is “direct” versus “indirect.” Under the court’s reasoning, the state would be prohibited under Article I, Section 6 from paying money directly to parochial schools. But the state doesn’t do that. It gives the money to the parents in the form of vouchers, and parents make independent choices about where to spend that money. If they spend it on parochial school tuition, that’s “indirect” state funding.
I think this is horrible reasoning, but it’s not surprising at all. It’s essentially the same reasoning that the U.S. Supreme Court has already endorsed in voucher cases.
Laundering. Sad.
I wonder why the Tuition given to parents isn’t considered a gift of public money. In Washington state, it is against the law to give away public money. The state isn’t paying the tuition, the parent is. The money is being “given” to the parent, therefore, it’s a gift of public money.
Clearly the ruling will be appealed to the SCOTUS, but whether it will accept the case is not clear. Even as national sentiment is slowly shifting toward gay marriage, so also national sentiment is shifting toward vouchers. I don’t see the Indiana Justices as blatantly ignoring the word of law (you sound like a strict constructionist) at all. Requiring students in religious schools to go to chapel, let us say, is not the same thing as supporting a religious institution. It is a fine line, but it is a line, and the Indiana vouchers seem to me legitimate because they give parents and students “choice”; no parent is forced to send a child to a religious school. I am happy to read this news.
SCOTUS only has jurisdiction over state court decisions when there’s a question of federal law, and I believe the law was challenged solely under Illinois law. So I wouldn’t expect an appeal. This was all Indiana from the get-go.
Sorry, “solely under Indiana law.”