SCOTUS Religious public schools

1. 93

   IslandBitesposted 2 months ago

   Supreme Court to decide whether states can allow religious public schools
   
   The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the state of Oklahoma may fund a proposed Catholic charter school, a blockbuster case that could redraw the line between church and state by allowing government to establish and directly fund religious schools for the first time.
   
   The closely watched case tests how far the Supreme Court is willing to go in what has been a steady expansion in the use of tax dollars to support parochial education and a push by the high court in recent terms to enlarge religion’s role in the public sphere.
   
   The court has already allowed government funding of vouchers for religious private schools.
   
   But charter schools are public schools, and last year the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the proposed religious charter school violated both the state and U.S. constitutions. The state court said that both state and federal law bar public money for the establishment of a religious institution.
   
   Charter schools are publicly funded but privately operated and must abide by many of the rules that govern traditional public schools. If the court allows states to directly fund religious charter schools, many existing private religious schools would be able to seek to convert to charter schools and benefit from full government funding, further eroding the line between government and religion.
   
   Oklahoma law clearly states that charter schools may not be sectarian or affiliated with a religious institution, and the state constitution bars spending public money, directly or indirectly, for any religious purpose, including teaching. Voters rejected an effort in 2016 to change the state’s constitution, with 57 percent voting no to allowing such spending.
   
   The schedule for filing court papers suggests the case is likely to be heard in late April.
   
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio … er-school/
   
   Is this the next step?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I saw this despite of the paywall put up by WP, this is troubling and is a direct affront to first amendment rights. What is going on here? Oklahoma is already a terribly retrograde state, so they are to lead the way with further outrage. I can see how the Supreme Court could accommodate a clear violation of a bedrock principle.
      
      I can’t stand these people and their determination to decide which if any God I decide to worship and codify it.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Based on your information (I also hit the WP paywall), a Supreme Court ruling should be the final step, affirming the State's ruling.
      
      Vouchers and funding are different things. I can see the logic of vouchers being okay, but not the funding of the school operations.
      
      Give me 2 to 1 odds, and I will bet that the Supreme Court affirms the state decision with an 8 to 1 (or 7/2) ruling. It might even be a 9 - 0 decision.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 92

         MizBejabbersposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

         I must respectfully disagree with you about the vouchers, GA. Our Trumplican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed vouchers into law as one of the first acts when she became governor. Now the wealthy who were paying to send their children to private religious schools can send them for free via vouchers. This takes money away from public schools and pays for their religious education. I think their religious indoctrination should be at their own expense and not on my dime as a taxpayer.
         
         I want to do some more checking on this to see of the religious institution can turn down vouchers for just any child. While the governor claims that children who normally couldn't afford to attend a private institution can now attend on a voucher, does the school still retain the right to turn down a child they deem "undesirable"? I can see room for some discrimination here.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            A year or two back I did a deep dive into this topic, so I'm relying on memory, but here's what I came away with:
            
            Charter schools are different than private schools for the rich. Private schools can pick & choose the applicants they accept. Charter schools cannot. Typically, demand for enrollment exceeds available slots so enrollment is normally by lottery—not cherry-picking good students as you infer private schools do.
            
            Charter school student demographics are normally disadvantaged minorities. Blacks & Hispanics make up almost three-quarters of enrollment.
            
            Academically, Charter school students outperform their public school counterparts, usually by a lot.
            
            The only valid criticism I found was that vouchers do take money away from public schools. But I don't see that as a negative.
            
            Testing numbers show that our public schools are failing. Parental demand for Charter schools shows that parents also think public schools are failing. Public school teachers even say that public schools are failing because they don't have enough money to do the job right. Decades of throwing more money at the problem hasn't worked.
            
            If you do look around a bit you'll find a lot of Thomas Sowell support pieces. He backs them with verifiable testing and demographics documentation.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 87

               wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

               "Blacks & Hispanics make up almost three-quarters of enrollment."
               
               If not cherry picking the good students, are they then cherry picking for skin color?  If so I would shut them down yesterday; we have zero room for discrimination in public schools.  Or private, but that's another tale.
               
               (My grandkids went to a charter school, and they had to have good grades to get in and good grades to stay in.  One of them nearly got kicked out for getting a single "F").

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  They aren't cherry-picking for skin color, the ratio is simply the demographics of the lottery pool.
                  
                  My perception is that passing grades are required in all charter schools. *shrug*
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                     But again, are we talking about for profit charter schools or only those that fall under a public School district authority in terms of where public dollars can be used?  There's a big difference in achievement between the 2...with studies showing that students in for-profit charter schools often demonstrate lower academic growth compared to their peers in traditional public schools,

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                        You're taxing my memory.
                        
                        My Charter school comments are relative to non-profit schools. I think that's the difference between them and private schools.
                        
                        Did Google say Charters can be for-profit?
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           tsmogposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Deleted
                        2. 88

                           tsmogposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                           From my peek, yes, they can be for-profit. However, it varies by state. For instance, in California for-profit charter schools were banned in 2018 whereas Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and others have for-profit charter schools. There seems to be a lot of baggage surrounding them such as selling them.
                           
                           Just for the curious:
                           
                           Does the state have a charter school law?
                           https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/cha … olicies-01
                           
                           For more . . .
                           
                           50-State Comparison: Charter School Policies
                           https://www.ecs.org/charter-school-policies/

                           replyreport
                        3. 60

                           Willowarborposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                           There are quite a few large corporations that produce and run for profit charter schools.  Generally they perform pretty poorly versus their public school peers.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Well hell, ya made me look. Your 'for-profit' charter school thought needs some context. It seems that the for-profit description isn't from the Charters' primary function but from the degree of administrative functions that are contracted out.
                              
                              Except for Arizona, it's generally accurate to say all charter schools are formed as non-profits.
                              
                              For points of this discussion that works for me. The exceptions wouldn't distort the general picture described: Charters outperform public schools for less cost. Charters are benefitting the youth segments that need it most.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                     2. 87

                        wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                        At least where I am, a for-profit charter school is a contradictory term, for by definition they are government owned.  Funded to a large degree, by business they still get much (if not most) of the funds from the state and are generally aimed at a specific general curriculum such as STEM or music.  They are owned and operated by local government.
                        
                        Business provides funding in the hopes of getting future workers, not of setting curriculum or operating classrooms.

                        replyreport
                  2. 87

                     wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Then they are building charter schools only in minority neighborhoods?  Again, sounds like something that needs shut down right now.
                     
                     Not in this area - kids had to have good, not average, grades.  Not sure what it was, but at least a B average.

                     replyreport
            2. 92

               MizBejabbersposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

               I was only disagreeing with you on the vouchers. In Arkansas, the vouchers are paid by taxpayer money, and it is my understanding that the money going to a private school is deducted from the public school funding that would have been paid for that particular voucher-child. I'm not confusing it with charter schools. I have no comment on them at this time.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I think you're right about the vouchers affecting public school funding—they are taxpayer money and the money does follow the student, not the school. That shouldn't be a bad thing.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                     But it probably IS a bad thing as politicians dictate teaching curriculum, methodology and everything else in a school...including purse strings.  And these strings will tighten as the child leaves; The money falls as some goes with the child, but then the federal contributions fall as well, resulting in even less for the public school.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Wellll . . .
                        
                        I did look about a bit, but not enough to argue the details. Relative to reduced Federal funding, it is less of a per-student cost and more of a low-income (meals) or disabled student services and access grant setup. They probably have a per-student number too, but the effect is less impactful than the state and local monies that go with the student.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 92

                           MizBejabbersposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Not in Arkansas, GA. I can't speak for other states, but here it reduces the per pupil funding, and even before vouchers some teachers in low income schools were buying needed classroom supplies for children out of their own pockets, which has nothing to do with amenities like school lunches. At one time the richest school district in the state was in Independence County at Newark close to the little town of Batesville where I grew up. The tax wealth came from a new coal fired generating plant, which is scheduled to be shut down in 2030. At this writing, that district is no longer the wealthiest one in the state, and I don't know what made the difference. Could be Walmart, but I don't know.

                           replyreport
2. 95

   Readmikenowposted 8 weeks ago

   I think each parent should have a right to pay for the child's education of their choice.
   
   IF they choose to send their children to a Catholic School, they should be able to deduct the cost for the school from their state taxes.  Why should a parent be forced to pay for their child's education and then pay for the education of other children without compensation?
   
   I believe in parents being able to send their children to the school of their choice.  They should have a right to have a say on how their tax dollars are spent. There are many public schools that have become liberal cesspools.  A place where children are indoctrinated into liberal viewpoints.
   
   Parents should not have to deal that if they choose.

   replyreport