Florida again attempts to let state government fund religious schools.

[madfloridian]

The Miami Herald has an editorial pointing out what the legislature is trying to do.

Stealth school vouchers: Legislature should drop duplicitous amendment

Don't be fooled. The two joint resolutions before the Legislature are another attempt to allow the state government to fund religious schools, potentially even when those schools or programs exclude people based on, say, a different religion, their race or sexual orientation. Florida's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission entertained opening the state's door to state-funded religious activity in 2008 but didn't succeed.

Now legislators are trying another stealth attack to strip Florida's Constitution of its long-standing ``no aid'' provision, which ensures that government doesn't inject public money into religious activities. This is a fundamental First Amendment guarantee that keeps government from favoring one faith over another.

Granted, the centuries old ``no aid'' provision has a checkered past. A Protestant majority at the time created the rule to serve as an anti-Catholic measure. But along the way the provision has served to treat all groups equally with fair rules that do not favor any religion. All religiously affiliated groups that want to apply for state funds to help the needy can do so today -- as long as their program's primary purpose or effect does not advance any religion.

The U.S. and Florida Constitutions already prohibit discrimination based on an individual's religious beliefs when seeking a job, a home or in any other public activity. State and federal laws also protect people from religious discrimination.

The only purpose for this proposed constitutional amendment would be to sap the state's already depleted education budget to finance vouchers for religious schools.

The Senate already in March passed a voucher bill expanding a corporate tax credit program that lets parents place their children in private schools – the first on a roster of controversial education bills that would have broad import for public schools.

They are going to deplete the funds for public schools come hell or high water or die trying. It's amazing they never give up.

FL Senate passes voucher bill for private schools. Will cause state to lose 31 million in taxes

TALLAHASSEE – The Florida Senate passed a voucher bill Wednesday expanding a corporate tax credit program that lets parents place their children in private schools – the first on a roster of controversial education bills that would have broad import for public schools.

The bill, SB 2126, would boost funding for the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program from $118 million to $140 million and gradually increase the amount of per-pupil funding allocated to the students to 80 percent of what it pays for each child in public schools.

..."The program allows corporations that make contributions deduct those gifts from their corporate income and insurance premium taxes. Economists expect the expansion would cost the state $31 million in lost taxes next year and as much as $228 million in future years – although those losses would be offset somewhat because taxpayers would pay less for students in the program than if they were attending public schools.

There were some very good points made in the Miami Herald article.

Florida already tried to establish a voucher program for kids to leave public schools for private or religious schools. That was wisely knocked down by Florida's Supreme Court in 2006. The court ruled that the program violated a constitutional provision calling for uniform, free public schools. It noted that public schools are undermined when state funds are diverted for private schools. For almost 130 years Florida's ``no aid'' provision has worked well to guard against state intrusion into religion without discrimination. There's nothing to fix, legislators. Move on.

This is not about bettering education. This is about emptying government buildings.

Jeb Bush said in his inaugural speech:

"There would be no
greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we can make these buildings around us empty of workers; silent monuments to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill.”

[madfloridian]

1. They are going against a court ruling in doing this.

They just relentlessly push their agenda.

http://trivalleycentral.com/articles/2010/04/17/front/doc4bca16a78a1a0704231764.txt

"A constitutional proposal designed to protect religious school vouchers and other state-funded faith-based programs from legal attack is being revived by the Florida Legislature two years after the state Supreme Court took a similar measure off the ballot.

House and Senate committees Tuesday approved identical versions of the proposed state constitutional amendment on straight party-line votes — Republicans in favor and Democrats against. One more committee hearing is set in each chamber before floor votes can be taken.

The proposal would repeal a ban on taxpayer financial aid to churches, sects and other religious institutions similar to provisions in most state constitutions across the nation."

[MajorChode]

2. Repugs should be reminded that school vouchers create an additional entitlement plan

The premise behind vouchers is that money 'saved' by not enrolling a student in a public school should be refunded to the parent for use in a private school.

This entire premise is fallacious. We don't give tax credits to childless people for the tax money they are 'saving' by not having kids. We don't give 'vouchers' to people who don't use the public library so they can shop at Barnes and Noble. The vast majority of those who send their kids to private schools are going to do so with or without a voucher. So all vouchers do is create a separate entitlement program to those who have children in private schools.

Now supposedly so-called conservatives are against new entitlement programs, but I guess their religious zealotry to violate the first amendment trumps their political ideology.

[paulsby]

3. it's not just a repubs thang

about 3/4 of african americans support vouchers.

i wasn't aware that anywhere NEAR that percentage were repubs

who knew?

[MajorChode]

4. Don't be so sure

African American voters rejected Prop 38 in California by a 3-1 margin.

It also depends on how you frame the question. When asked if they would support vouchers if it meant less money for public schools, people overwealmingly reject the idea. I'm pretty sure if you asked if people would support higher taxes to pay for a voucher program, that would get soundly rejected also. That's why the idea of vouchers may be fairly popular, but when it comes to developing a plan to actually implement them, they are generally rejected.

[paulsby]

5. they are generally supported

because african americans are more likely to be in areas with crappy(er) public schools, and/or they see the hypocrisy when public officials laud the public school system, then send THEIR kids to sidwell friends etc.

i agree that how a question is framed can of course affect the poll results though.

i support vouchers, and i know that's a minority position here.

[MajorChode]

6. Then why do voucher initiatives fail when they come to a vote?

In the last 40 years there have been dozens of voucher referendums and they fail almost universally every single time.

[paulsby]

7. you are right

i am reading up on some of these right now

it appears they fail miserably, even in areas with high AA population, which suggests the polls aren't very accurate

[MajorChode]

8. As I said...

I think the idea of vouchers may be popular, but when the rubber hits the road they aren't so much. The old adage, 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch' holds true. I think if people were educated on the realities of private schools they would be less likely to think vouchers are a great idea. I'm not convinced that private schools are better on average, and even if they were, vouchers are a piss-poor way to improve education. I think that states should be required to spend the exact same amount on every single (non special needs) student. A child born in Compton should be entitled to the same education as a child born in Beverly Hills. Handicapping the education of children in poor areas is evil.

[paulsby]

9. as somebody who went to both private and public schools

and know many other kids from both environments, i have ZERO doubt that private schools are, on average, far more likely to be better than not

it's not even close ime.

otoh, like i said, it appears you were correct about the true support of vouchers, or more correctly - the lack thereof, based on their generally miserable failure in referendums.

[MajorChode]

10. Your experience is anectodal and doesn't account for socioeconomic status

Private schools are elitist in that they generally pool the best students. Therefore it's pretty difficult to develop an apples to apples comparison. The subject has been studied and the CEP says private schools aren't better:
http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=226&documentFormatId=3665

Even if you could make the arguement that private schools are marginally better, paying children to go to them would be an incredibly inefficient way to improve education and it does absolutely nothing to help the poorest children who need the most help and wouldn't be able to afford a private school with or without a voucher. The best and most efficient way to improve primary education is to improve public schools.

[paulsby]

11. there are several flaws with this argument

one of them is that private schools can cater (to some extent) being smaller and more flexible to different types of studetns with different needs and talents.

public schools, cannot be as nimble so to speak

an area that has one large public school could have 4 private schools that in total don't have as many students as the former

but each of those private schools can cater (to some extent) to different types of students.

not all private schools are for (example) the academic elite.

there are parochial schools, quaker schools (i went to one of these), secular schools, etc.

my brother went to a school that specialized in dealing with, to a large extent, kids that didn't fit into the highly structured public school system but thrived more in an environment that was more open to self starters and kids who worked better when they weren't micromanaged.

private schools can also hire teachers that are phenomenally talented but don't have the credentials that public schools require

one of my teachers had a Phd, was totally brilliant, taught latin, etc. but didn't have a teaching certificate.

i think there is a place for both private and public schools, but i say again, imo private schools on average are better.

CEP is a think tank, that essentially advocates for public schools.

i am sure we could both come up with links etc. that claim one or the other is better.

one thing about private schools is that they ONLY survive if people CHOOSE to spend their money to send their kids there. since public schools are free, and often effectively people's ONLY choice the same does not apply to them.

fwiw, i have two close relatives, one of whom is a principal at a public school, and another a long time teacher. i am not, nor have you ever seen me, denigrating public schools or their teachers. however, i think that on average, private schools are better at teaching kids.

[MajorChode]

12. I don't think we're talking about the same argument

one of them is that private schools can cater (to some extent) being smaller and more flexible to different types of studetns with different needs and talents.

public schools, cannot be as nimble so to speak

an area that has one large public school could have 4 private schools that in total don't have as many students as the former

but each of those private schools can cater (to some extent) to different types of students.

Smaller does not necessarily mean more flexible. In fact, I would expect the reverse to be true. Larger schools have a bigger pool of students to draw from, which means they can offer many more programs to fit a bigger variety of situations. Even if you could make the argument that smaller niche schools are better for some reason, there's nothing stopping public school districts from establishing these types of schools. This is already being tried from within the framework of charter schools with mixed results.

not all private schools are for (example) the academic elite.

All private schools are allowed to screen their students. By elite, I mean they are free to either cherry pick only the best students or focus narrowly on a particular type of child.

my brother went to a school that specialized in dealing with, to a large extent, kids that didn't fit into the highly structured public school system but thrived more in an environment that was more open to self starters and kids who worked better when they weren't micromanaged.

private schools can also hire teachers that are phenomenally talented but don't have the credentials that public schools require

one of my teachers had a Phd, was totally brilliant, taught latin, etc. but didn't have a teaching certificate.

Private schools are not subject to regulation like public schools. If they are going to start tapping public funds for education, they should be required to conform to the same regulation. This is also inevitable. Once private schools start accepting public money, you can bet that the public is going to start to demand more say so in how those schools are run, which is as it should be.

i think there is a place for both private and public schools, but i say again, imo private schools on average are better.

CEP is a think tank, that essentially advocates for public schools.

i am sure we could both come up with links etc. that claim one or the other is better.

Nevertheless, the CEP is the foremost authority on the subject and the study was far more comprehensive than any done in the past, however if you like other studies that show private schools are better, go with them. They still only show marginal improvements. That's still a long way from showing that vouchers are a good idea.

one thing about private schools is that they ONLY survive if people CHOOSE to spend their money to send their kids there. since public schools are free, and often effectively people's ONLY choice the same does not apply to them.

Sure they have a choice. In fact they have more choices. They can appeal to their elected officials or they can move to another school district. If they can't afford to move to another school district, chances are they probably couldn't afford a private school even WITH a voucher, so they are still left with ONLY one choice anyway.

The argument is not whether private schools or public schools are better. The question is how can we improve education in America. Vouchers will either drain money from public schools, or they will create an additional funding liability. Draining money from the public schools would undoubtedly have a negative effect. If you went the other way, the additional funds spent on a voucher program would be better spent improving public schools.

The other question is, who are you going to help by creating a voucher program? Are you going to help the poorest students who need the help the most? Certainly not. Mostly you are just going to create a windfall for those who are going to send their kids to a private schools with or without a voucher. You might pick up a few extra kids whose parents would otherwise not be able to afford a private school, but chances are they are affluent enough to send their kids to good public schools anyway.

So even if you could make the argument that private schools are better, a voucher program just means more money for no improvement in the problem that vouchers are supposed to fix.

[paulsby]

18. i think you make great and rational

arguments.

let me just address one thing...

"All private schools are allowed to screen their students. By elite, I mean they are free to either cherry pick only the best students or focus narrowly on a particular type of child."

while that is true, many private schools don't really do so

many catholic/parochial schools for example, make a point of taking kids that have done quite badly in public school

catholic schools are quite successful at this, and they do it for a relatively small outlay per student

again, though. great rational clear headed argumentation on your part and i am holding on to your post to consider all the points

[MajorChode]

19. I wouldn't disagree that private schools often take problem students

However, they aren't exactly what I was referring. I was talking more about special needs students. Some private schools may take those students, but again this is entirely their option. If they don't want to develop the resources for those types of students or they have limited accommodations for them, they can simply reject as many they like or all of them. Public schools don't have that option. The bottom line is that private schools can cherry pick exactly the type of students they want. Whether they choose to exercise that option is up to them, but either way it puts them at a tremendous advantage.

[madfloridian]

27. Correct, and I don't want them cherry-picking with taxpayer money.

It is too much blending of public and private money in the education sector.

[madfloridian]

15. A voucher means my tax money will send your kid to private school...

even a private religious school. And I have no say in it.

It is taking precious dollars from schools that are being dismantled to privatize education.

Jeb targeted African Americans in Florida when he started his voucher and other education plans. He rallied with them, he manipulated them. It was a shame to watch it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Link?

[madfloridian]

24. Very good point. It IS an entitlement plan with taxpayer money.

It means my taxes against my will being used to send the children of those who can't afford it to private or religious schools.

I could never afford it for my own kids, but now I have to do it for others.

Look at it that way...entitlement for sure.

[divvy]

13. Religious Conservatives can be relentless.

They cannot be reasoned with and have the stamina of the mentally ill.

[madfloridian]

17. You are right about that.

They never give up.

[DFW]

14. The Taliban are amatuers compared to some of our "religious" right n/t

[madfloridian]

16. Yep, the "religious" right are organized and powerful.

And no one stands up to their demands.

[Dinger]

20. Jesus Christ, Is It Too Late For Public Education?

And no, charters don't count as "public."

[madfloridian]

22. You are right, they don't count.

And yes, sometimes I think it is too late for public education.

It is easier on me because I am retired, but I can not imagine how hard it must be for folks like you still teaching.

[Nikki Stone1]

31. It's going to destroy current teachers over time

Eventually they will have to go to a two-tiered system until they flush the professionals out of the system and are left with "Do you want fries with that" personnel.

[lib2DaBone]

21. The Religious Taliban... breeding like roaches...

..just one question? What says these people are acceptable or even "Main Stream"?

We are fighting two world wars in Afghaistan and Iraq against so-called "Religious Zealots". Yet we do everytihg in our power in America to empower these factions? Huh?

[madfloridian]

23. We do empower the religious right. Our party does that.

You are right.

[madfloridian]

26. And Florida won't give up trying as long as this bunch is in control.

[madfloridian]

28. More on this...may be on ballot.

http://www.news-press.com/article/20100414/NEWS0104/4140368/Florida-voters-on-way-to-seeing-school-vouchers-on-ballot

" A plan that could revive state-paid tuition vouchers for students in parochial schools made two giant strides toward Florida's November ballot Tuesday. Voting on straight party lines, Senate and House committees approved identical constitutional amendments that would allow "indirect" state aid to institutions affiliated with churches.

Sen. Thad Altman, R-Viera, and Rep. Steve Precourt, R-Orlando, said their amendment would not violate the federal prohibition of "establishment" of religion, but would simply assure public agencies can contract with church-affiliated institutions for services like education, transportation of the elderly, soup kitchens, homelessness programs and other charitable or rehabilitative efforts.

Opponents said the motive is not to protect hospitals or social services run by churches, but to bring back the state-funded tuition vouchers for children leaving public schools for private institutions - including church schools.

"We've heard this bill wrapped in the cloak of religious freedom," Florida Education Association lobbyist Kevin Watson told the House Civil and Criminal Justice Policy Council. "The language would eliminate a major legal hurdle to wide-open vouchers."

[Orlandodem]

29. They would still have to get at least 60% of voters to approve.

Make sure all teachers and their family understand the impact this will have on public schools.

[Nikki Stone1]

30. .

.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Just remind the good people of Florida that this could result in taxpayer money

going to send students to radical jihadist madrassas.

(It doesn't have to be true to scare the idiots.)