Betsy DeVos and her husband Dick DeVos sponsored a referendum to change Michigan’s State Constitution in 2000 so that the state could fund vouchers for religious schools. Their referendum was overwhelmingly defeated, by 68-32%.
Now the rightwing is trying again, bypassing another referendum (which would be defeated) and sponsoring a law to achieve the same purpose.
ELC JOINS FIGHT TO MAINTAIN MICHIGAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL BAN AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Education Law Center filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief earlier this month in a crucial case before the Michigan Court of Appeals challenging a law that would redirect public education funds to private schools. The challenged statute, which was found unconstitutional and blocked by the lower court, would divert $2.5 million a year from the State’s appropriation of public school funding to reimburse private schools for a wide array of expenses.
Several Michigan entities filed the lawsuit, Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid (CAP) v. Michigan, alleging violations of state constitutional provisions prohibiting public aid to nonpublic schools and requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature to appropriate public funds for private purposes. The legal team representing the plaintiffs includes the ACLU of Michigan and the firm White Schneider.
After entering a preliminary injunction blocking the law, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens ruled in April 2018 that the statute violated the plain language of Article 8, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution. This constitutional provision, approved by voter referendum in 1970, prohibits the use of public funds to “directly or indirectly” support private schools. Judge Stephens found that the statute “effectuate[s] the direct payment of public funds to nonpublic schools” and “supports the employment of nonpublic school employees.” The State then appealed Judge Stephens’ ruling.
ELC’s amicus brief provides the appeals court with historical context demonstrating that Michigan voters intended to protect the funding of public education and improve the quality of their public school system when they approved the constitutional ban on public funds for private schools.
The amicus brief also highlights the persistent underfunding of Michigan’s public schools and the widening disparities in student performance, as demonstrated by the State’s own studies. Michigan fails to equitably allocate funding and resources to state public schools, with at-risk students, including economically disadvantaged students, English language learners, and students with disabilities, experiencing the most inequitable funding and the lowest academic outcomes.
The amicus brief argues that the challenged statute will exacerbate the underfunding of Michigan public schools by diverting already inadequate funding from public schools to reimburse private school expenses in some of the same categories in which public schools are struggling to meet basic requirements.
Other states have enacted similar laws authorizing “nonpublic school aid” to reimburse private schools for a wide variety of expenditures. In New Jersey, for example, the Legislature allocates over $110 million in public funds in the annual state budget to pay for textbooks, security, nurses and remedial programs in private and religious schools. New York recently enacted a law to reimburse private schools for the salaries of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) teachers.
“Michigan’s public school funding is protected by the constitutional firewall between public tax dollars and private education,” said ELC Executive Director David Sciarra. “It is crucial that the courts not allow the diversion of any funds from Michigan’s chronically and severely underfunded public schools.”
ELC was represented as amicus pro bono by the law firms Paul Weiss and Salvatore Prescott & Porter. As the nation’s legal defense fund for education rights, ELC advocates for fair and adequate public education funding and opposes the use of public funds to pay for or support private schools.
Education Law Center Press Contact:
Sharon Krengel
Policy and Outreach Director
skrengel@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x 24
No “rights” or democratic principles are safe and secure without vigilant engaged voters.
Agree. Certainly need ACLU and Education Law Center.
The parties need to see the following Supreme Court decisions:
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
and
Trinity School District v. Comer (2017)
The Supreme Court (USA) has ruled that public funds can go to parents to assist them in affording costs incurred in alternate education. The Court has ruled that states cannot block public funds going to religiously-operated schools.
When will they ever learn?
The Court has approved funding non-tuition costs —like paving a playground—Ot has not approved direct funding of tuition for religious schools.
Here is an article from the New York Times, a paper that is decidedly liberal/progressive, that says that public funds can underwrite the costs that parents incur, when they send their children to religiously-operated schools.
This has been settled constitutional law for over 16 years.
Why are some organizations and individuals so slow to get it?
see
Many states have laws preventing the expenditure of public funds on religious tuition.
Michigan has such a ban, passed by referendum in 1970 and reaffirmed by referendum in 2000.
Charles I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure all that decision says is that states may do this, within the confines outlined, constitutionally — not that they must. It would take another kind of suit brought before SCOTUS to strike down a law such as Michigan’s.
Hi Charles:
Public funds are from all tax payers to support the COMMON GOODS like Public Education, Hospitals and Public Transportation (train, bus, and roads/bridges/highways…)
All religious, private matters like PERSONAL education, PERSONAL political INTEREST should be done by the personal FUND and responsibility.
You persistently support PERSONAL and PRIVATE EDUCATION. WHY??? Is it your personal GAIN to advocate an abusive demand? Back2basic
Public funds are used to support all sorts of activities. Providing infrastructure, like ports, roads, and airports,etc. are the legitimate functions of government. People sometimes forget, that the federal government had to go to court, to get permission to build a bridge over the Mississippi river. The engineer who was in charge of the project was Robert E. Lee, and the lawyer who argued the case for the government was Abraham Lincoln.
Governments provide funds to NGOs (Iike religions) to operate all sorts of activities. Religions run homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, food pantries, etc. and the public provides money to these operations, entirely legally. Individuals attend religiously-based institutions of higher learning, like Notre Dame, and Brigham Young University, with Basic Grants, and ROTC scholarships, and no one objects.
Some states, like Arizona, permit families to set up educational savings accounts, using their own money, and then use their PERSONAL money to meet the costs of alternate education for their children.
I live in Fairfax County Virginia, which has some of the finest public schools in the nation. I proudly support these schools. I am NOT anti-public school.
I support choices for parents, to select the proper and finest possible education for their children. This may be in a public school, or a non-public school. Our nation does not have one telecommunications company (many nations do). We do not have three television networks anymore. Why should we have a system of monopoly public schools for K-12?
I am not advocating for choice, for personal gain. I am only one private citizen. But I support education through my taxes. I have to live in a world populated by the graduates of our nation’s educational system.
I am not interested in abusing anyone, or making any abusive demands.
Give it a rest, Charles. Everyone here knows you support private choices with public funds. I dont. As a Jew, I don’t want my tax money to pay for yeshivas that teach all subjects in Hebrew or Yiddish and that leave students unprepared to function in our society. Every religion should pay for its own schools. Parents who teach their kids at home should not be given tuition money by the state. Charters should be authorized and controlled only by local school boards to meet the needs of the community. All for-profit management organizations should go into a different business.
I am very bored with your repetitive daily postings about school choice. I will delete them. Everyone already knows what you believe should be done to our tax dollars and our kids.
Let’s be clear. The US Constitution, for sound reasons, does not permit laws that establish any religion, nor prohibit the exercise of any religion. Any public subsidy to any religious entity violates that clause. So, people have a right to choose whatever religious practices they want. But, there is nothing in the constitution to suggest that government can legally subsidize that choice. Clearly, that constitutional principle has been routinely violated in myriad ways, not just in education, but elsewhere.
Let’s also be clear that the education budgets at the local, state, and federal levels are strained. So, choice is a euphemism for transferring money away from institutions set up for the common good to benefit people who want to opt out of public systems.
Not unlike, the recently passed tax bill.
Well said.
It used to be that you censored your blog only for personal insults. Now do you propose to censor Charles because you don’t agree with his arguments?
Harlan, if you post the same comment every day, several times a day, I will delete them. Charles knows that. Now you know it too.
@ Arthur: You say Q Any public subsidy to any religious entity violates that clause. END Q
Why do you say that? Public money flows to NGO’s (including religious organizations) to operate all types of activities. Tax dollars support homeless shelters, food pantries, abused-women’s shelters, etc. and there is no constitutional objection at all. Private citizens can take a tax deduction, when they donate money to religious organizations which have a 501(c) 3 designation.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2017, that tax money could go to a religiously-operated school, to provide for safety equipment.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1925, that tax money could flow to a Christian seminary, to pay the costs to train a person as a Christian minister (this case was decided unanimously).
Senior citizens can get Medicare payments, and get medical treatment at Catholic or Jewish hospitals.
You claim Q Clearly, that constitutional principle has been routinely violated in myriad ways, not just in education, but elsewhere. END Q
Where has the constitutional principle of non-establishment of religion been violated? The Supreme Court ruled in 2002, that public money could go to parents, to pay tuition costs at religiously-operated K-12 schools.
You claim that there is a constitutional violation. Where is it? Can you cite a specific case, where providing tax money to religious organizations, to provide services (including education) is a violation of the first amendment?
Students at colleges/universities get all types of public money through Basic Grants, GI Bill payments, ROTC Scholarships, to attend religiously-operated universities. How is this a violation of the establishment clause?
You claim Q So, choice is a euphemism for transferring money away from institutions set up for the common good to benefit people who want to opt out of public systems. END Q
I disagree. School choice is no euphemism. The precise goal and justification for school choice is to empower parents, to remove their children from publicly-operated schools, and enroll them in alternate schools. No euphemism here.
I am no constitutional scholar, but I’d conjecture that all the examples you cite of government funds flowing to religious institutions without legal challenge does not mean that this is based on an acceptable interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Rather, in my humble opinion, these are concessions to political pressure and the failure of government to take full responsibility for the wellbeing of all its people.
People have a fundamental right to choose religiously based services in school and elsewhere, but government has no responsibility to fund that choice.
@Arthur: You say Q I am no constitutional scholar, but I’d conjecture that all the examples you cite of government funds flowing to religious institutions without legal challenge does not mean that this is based on an acceptable interpretation of the Establishment Clause END Q
The maxim in law is “Quietat es Consenteri”, which means “Silence is consent”. Virtually no one objects to public money flowing to NGOs (including religious organizations) to operate activities which benefit our society. NGOs can generally operate such enterprises, with much lower overhead costs than a government operation. Providing money to a humanitarian enterprise, is not establishing a state religion.
and you say Q failure of government to take full responsibility for the wellbeing of all its people. END Q
Since when does government have any responsibility to provide for the wellbeing of the people? The federal government is empowered to promote the general welfare. It is not empowered to provide for all of our needs.
and Q People have a fundamental right to choose religiously based services in school and elsewhere, but government has no responsibility to fund that choice. END Q
Experience has shown, that NGOs can often provide humanitarian services more efficiently than government enterprises. Overhead and administrative costs are lower, and more aid reaches the recipient, without 15 levels of government bureaucrats taking their “cut”. It is almost always more cost-effective to provide a grant to an NGO.
You already admit that you have given up on doing anything to reduce poverty. Why do you, a defeatist, advise others what to do?
Please explain why poverty is so low in other countries? Are we unusually stupid, in your eyes?
Are did entrepreneurs move in to make a profit by stealing funds intended to reduce poverty? The same guys now trying to steal public money intended for public schools and divert it to madrasas, yeshivas, and charter schools
Q You already admit that you have given up on doing anything to reduce poverty. Why do you, a defeatist, advise others what to do?
Please explain why poverty is so low in other countries? Are we unusually stupid, in your eyes?
Are did entrepreneurs move in to make a profit by stealing funds intended to reduce poverty? The same guys now trying to steal public money intended for public schools and divert it to madrasas, yeshivas, and charter schools
ENDQ
I have never admitted that I have “given up” on doing anything to reduce poverty. I have some ideas, but they will never be realized.
The old cliché is true “give a man a fish you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for his life”. I would love to see more support for job training/vocational/technical schools. There are already some spot shortages in some fields, and they do not require a four-year college degree.
I would love to replace the plethora of poverty programs, with a simple, negative income tax. By placing money directly in the hands of poor people, you eliminate the “bureaucratic friction” involved in administrative costs, and more money goes directly into the hands of the poor.
I would like to see more efforts to keep families intact. Everyone agrees that children fare better, in homes with two parents. Married women receive better pre-natal care, etc. Children raised in two-parent homes do better in school. Boys in homes with a solid male presence are less likely to run with gangs, and are less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system. Girls from solid two-parent homes are less likely to begin sexual activity at a young age, and are less likely to go one welfare themselves. The poverty programs in the USA work to break up families, and discourage marriage and responsible child-rearing. 78% of all black children are born to unmarried females. If this is not a “stupid” policy, what is?
Some nations have a lower poverty rate than the USA. Some of their ideas could possibly be adopted by our country.
I do not think that the USA is “stupid”. Some of our programs have been counterproductive. After over 50 years, and $22 Trillion dollars in expenditures, there are more people in poverty than there were before the war on poverty started. If this is not “stupid”, what is?
I have no information about entrepreneurs stealing funds as you describe. With so much money in the pipeline, it is not unreasonable to assume that there has been fraud, waste, and abuse in the administration of such a large sum.
The USA spends a great deal on education. Are there individuals who want to get a piece of the action, and set up alternate schools? Of course, there are.
Has the US Department of Education Secretary ever worked on anything that benefitted a single public school, anywhere?
It’s just nuts. We have “education leaders” in our federal government who have zero interest in the schools 85% of US students attend.
98,000 public schools in the US and Trump Administration can’t be persuaded to contribute anything of value to any of them. Instead, these public employees spend their days promoting private schools!
That’s crazy. The public shouldn’t put up with it. Add some value or look for another job.
In the USA K-12 education is basically a state/municipal responsibility. The feds put up about 10% of the costs (for K-12).
Since the responsibility is (correctly) that of the states/municipalities, then the states/municipalities should be glad that the feds are staying out of it.
Many people, from all sides of the political spectrum, would like to see the federal Dept of Education abolished altogether.
Your claim that the leadership of the current dept of education have “zero interest” in the operation of public schools in this nation, is hyperbolic and inaccurate. I am certain that the leadership is keenly interested in publicly-operated schools. The feds are involved in higher education, and vocational/technical education as well.
Any person, who is interested in supporting public schools in the USA, should keep their focus local, and not look to a bunch of Washington bureaucrats. Traditionally, public schools have been a state/municipal responsibility. Local people can have more impact on their public schools, by working with their local school board, and their state educational authorities.
It is time to “write off” the clowns in Washington, and take back your public schools.
Betsy DeVos is a religious zealot. She has declared that her mission is to “advance God’s Kingdom.” She has publicly called public schools “a dead end.” She is an enemy of the schools attended by 85% of US kids
All the more reason to abolish the Federal Dept of Ed, and send her back to the private sector. (There are many things that we can agree on. Having a federal role in K-12 education is ludicrous. Turn it back to the states/municipalities).
There is a necessary federal role in education:
The feds could easily minimize their role, and reduce it to data collection and statistical analysis. Other functions, like providing for disabled students, and financial support for less affluent districts, could much better be handled, by providing cash grants to the states/municipalities. Why have bureaucrats in WashDC, dictate policy to public schools, in South Dakota? The local teachers/principals, etc. know the problems more closely, and can solve the problems more efficiently.
An interesting race for Congress in Alaska-
In the Democratic primary, there is a Democrat advocating for single payer as the primary plank in his platform. His opponent, Alyse Gavin, is an independent who campaigned against the appointment of Betsy DeVos. Her success was shown when Pence had to break the tie because the Republican Alaskan Senator voted against DeVos.
Oh my goodness. A Republican who did something virtuous. That doesn’t fit with our usual assumption here that all Republicans are evil. Do we not believe here that all Republicans are the spawn of the Devil himself and that the only good persons in the USA are progressive, socialist Democrats?
In today’s political situation, all Republicans are venal, too selfish to care about others, racist and/or incapable of understanding big picture consequences. The preceding description is also true about some Democrats like Arne Duncan and Jared Polis. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg also fit the description, as do the intellectual prostitutes at corporate-funded, liberal pretending think tanks
The Republican Senator who voted as she did, had one motivation, to stay in Washington D.C.. She said as much, in her defense of her vote.
I have to say that I am with you on this one, Harlan. I have yet to find any argument that is black or white with no gray area. People who who are so doctrinaire that they refuse to even consider compromise as a useful tool scare the bejesus out of me. I don’t care to be ruled by ideologues on either end of the political spectrum.
JIM CROW is back. How many young people know about the plight of the African Americans and others who are NOT white? This separate, but equal is “FULL OF IT.”
Dr Ravitch, thank you for calling attention to this. My organization, Michigan Parents for Schools, along with Detroit parent group 482Forward are lead plaintiffs in this case and are represented by ACLU Michigan. A number of statewide school organizations along with the Kalamazoo Public Schools are also plaintiffs.
As is often the case, the argument before the state Court of Appeals will hinge on important details of law and precedent rather than broad ideas. What’s important to know here is that our suit is based on a 1970 amendment to the state constitution which prohibits public funding for the operation or support of ANY private (“non-public”) school. The argument is not about religion, but about reserving public funds for schools accountable to the public.
While many advocates of public funding for private schools intentionally confuse the issues, this case is not about a so-called “Blaine Amendment” which prohibits public funding for the creation or running of religious institutions. Michigan’s constitution does indeed have such language, and has since the 1800s (as do many other states), but that’s not what’s at issue here. Hence, SCOTUS decisions about the establishment and free exercise clauses are not on point.
What is most important is that the 1970 amendment is what prevents the state legislature from creating a voucher system that includes private schools. Lawmakers who added the budget provisions at issue here were clear on their intention that this be the thin end of the wedge to undermine the 1970 prohibition and thus find a back door for vouchers. The 1970 amendment has survived two challenges since it was adopted, the last one (in 2000) organized and bankrolled by the DeVos family. Observers note that, when their challenge to the ban failed, Dick and Betsy DeVos shifted their attention to charter schools and pushing their rapid proliferation.
As a result, there is a lot at stake in this case as we try to head off legislative “salami tactics” to continuously add to the range of private school expenses which can be covered with public funds. The people of my state have made their wishes clear in several referenda, and our lawsuit simply seeks to hold the state government accountable to those wishes.