University of Miami School of Law Center for Ethics & Public Service Education Group – Miami Senior High Intern Allison Gillus September 29, 2004 Freedom of Religion – School Vouchers. Case Study Sean attends one of the poorest schools in the county. Sean’s parents are very concerned. Schools all over the county are overcrowded and public schools are suffering. To combat this problem the Miami-Dade County Government and the School Board have decided to hold a meeting to discuss implementing a voucher plan. Though Sean’s parents are disappointed with the quality of education their child is receiving, they have no interest in sending Sean to private school. They believe the county should attempt to improve the public schools using the money they would be giving out through vouchers. Sean’s parents think the voucher system is simply a thinly veiled attempt to funnel money from the government to religious institutions. They point out that more than 2/3 of all private schools in the county are affiliated with a church, and therefore most students who use the vouchers will be going to a religious school. Paul attends the same school as Sean. Paul’s parents are in support of the vouchers. They are concerned that their son is not getting a good education at his current school and they want Paul to receive the best education possible. It would take years for the county to improve its public school system, if it ever did. The voucher system would allow Paul to attend a better school during the upcoming school year. They believe that the voucher system does not violate freedom of religion because the parent is free to choose where they use the voucher. They don’t have to use the voucher at a religious school and in fact don’t have to use the voucher at all. Dade would be the first county in Florida to have a voucher system. The plan would allow students who attend the county’s worst schools to be given a tuition check that they may choose to use at a private school of their choice. If they choose to stay at the public school, they receive aid to pay a tutor. The county provides the tuition money as part of the public funds available each year. In this system, students without the money to pay tuition may still attend a private or religious school if they so choose. It is the hope of the School Board that many students will use this opportunity to attend private school. That way those families that choose to stay at the public school will benefit from smaller class sizes and the school will be able to provide a better education. At the county meeting, members of the community voiced a concern that the vouchers would most likely be used at religious schools. The voucher system results in the county paying money to support religious education. Consequently, there is concern that the system violates the separation of church and state in the First Amendment. Discussion Questions 1. What are some benefits of a school voucher program? What are some disadvantages? 2. The United States Supreme Court has decided that this system of school vouchers does not violate the First Amendment, do you agree? 3. Why is it important that there be a separation of church and state? 4. Should use of the vouchers be limited to schools with no religious affiliation? Would that be a violation of the separation of church and state as well? 5. Assume this same system was attempted in a small town where all of the private schools in the county were religious schools, would your opinion change? 6. Would you rather see money go towards school vouchers, allowing a student to attend a private school, or do you think the money should be applied towards improving the public schools? 7. Tutors are far cheaper than private school tuition. Therefore students who choose to remain in public schools get less money than the students who go to private school. Is this fair? Role Play Mayor of Dade County Superintendent of Miami-Dade County School Board Sean Sean’s parents Paul Paul’s parents Recommended Reading Bush v. Holmes, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. McCallum, 324 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2003). Joshua Edelstein, Zelman, Davey, And The Case For Mandatory Government Funding For Religious Education, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 151 (2004). Rita-Anne O'Neill, School Voucher Debate After Zelman: Can States Be Compelled To Fund Sectarian Schools Under The Federal Constitution?, 44 B.C. L. Rev. 1397 (2003). Keith Werhan, Navigating The New Neutrality: School Vouchers, The Pledge, And The Limits Of A Purposive Establishment Clause, 41 Brandeis L.J. 603 (2003). Teaching Guide Florida’s Voucher Program The Florida Opportunity Scholarships Program (OSP) allows parents whose children are assigned to a failing school to choose between a higher performing public school or applying state generated funding toward private school tuition. These private schools receive payment from the state for tuition and fees. For the students who choose to remain at a failing school throughout the year, additional resources and assistance have been provided by the state and the Florida Department of Education. A failing school is defined as a school that received a failing grade in the previous year as well as one other failing grade in the three previous years. Since the programs implementation in 1999 it has faced several challenges in Florida courts. Bush v. Holmes is the most recent court decision regarding the constitutionality of this program. Bush v. Holmes, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Facts: Parents, teachers, taxpayers, and other individuals brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging facial constitutionality of state school voucher program, Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). OSP allows a student attending a "failing" public school to attend a private school, sectarian or non-sectarian, with the financial assistance of the state. Holding: Voucher program violates the no-aid provision found in the last sentence of article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution because the OSP uses state revenues to aid sectarian schools. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 122 S.Ct. 2460 (2002). State of Ohio established a pilot voucher program in the Cleveland City School District. The court of appeals found that the program had the “primary effect” of advancing religion in violation of the Establishment clause. The Supreme Court decided that the program was neutral, a program of “true private choice.” This voucher system did not violate the Establishment clause because there were no financial incentives that “skew the program toward religious schools”, despite the fact that 82% of all private schools in the district are religious schools. Souter Dissent: This system is not neutral. They system does skew towards benefiting religious schools because students who choose to stay at the private school may only receive $324 for tutoring, whereas the religious school can receive up to $2,250 in tuition aid paid by tax dollars. Therefore, the religious schools benefit more than any other school. Furthermore, the fact that 96% of the vouchers are spent at religious schools indicates that there is a lack of real choice in private education in the state. Souter worries that there will be school districts where all of the private schools available are religious schools. Breyer Dissent: This majority opinion adopts an “equal opportunity” rationale. Over the last fifty years the court has consistently read the establishment clause as insisting upon a greater separation of church and state. Sara J. Crisafulli, Zelman V. Simmons-Harris: Is The Supreme Court's Latest Word On School Voucher Programs Really The Last Word?, 71 Fordham L. Rev. 2227 (2003) The Supreme Court's decision in Zelman focused predominantly on individual choice and the neutrality of the aid to conclude that the program did not create an impermissible endorsement of religion. In upholding the Cleveland voucher program, the Court did not consider that the program funds went directly to sectarian schools in the form of tuition payments without restrictions or safeguards to ensure the aid was used for only secular purposes. In this way, the Zelman decision removed many of the Establishment Clause barriers to state-funded programs providing aid to sectarian institutions. While the Court's opinion indicates that voucher programs similar in design to Cleveland's will withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, there is less certainty about how federal courts will treat programs with fewer educational alternatives. The Zelman Court emphasized the presence of a "genuine and independent choice" allowing parents to select a school from a number of secular options as well as from private sectarian schools. Following Justice O'Connor's definition of genuine choice provided in her concurrence, a federal court would consider a choice genuine if parents believed that a "reasonable alternative" to sectarian education existed. If the voucher system gave tuition vouchers for private school and the only other choice was to stay at the failing public school, then it would be unconstitutional.
Pages to are hidden for
"Fall Strategic Planning Memorandum"Please download to view full document