|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
‘Public
Education’ Should Fund Any Education, Not Just Government-Run Schools
Brittany Corona
December 22, 2014
“Are you saying public education is just a funding mechanism? … Is all
education now public [and parents] can just choose?” asked Colorado
Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Rice during oral arguments over the
constitutionality of Douglas County’s Choice Scholarship Pilot Program.
The case has brought forth a question that has been at the forefront of
state and national debates over school choice: What is the definition
of “public education,” anyway?
“It is important to distinguish between ‘schooling’ and ‘education.’
Not all schooling is education nor all education, schooling,” wrote
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. “The proper subject of
concern is education. The activities of government are mostly limited
to schooling.”
School choice separates financing of education from delivery of
services. Educational opportunity through school choice empowers
parents with the ability to direct education funding toward a schooling
option that best fits their child. Education is publicly funded, but
parents can choose from a variety of delivery options.
School choice programs make sense: They operate with the conviction
that every child is unique and has unique learning needs, and
one-size-fits-all government-run schools have their limits and can’t
always meet the needs of every student.
Although education choice is spreading rapidly–more than 300,000
children are now benefitting from private school-choice options–some
states and school districts, such as Douglas County, Colo., are facing
lawsuits over the constitutionality of school choice.
When the Douglas County Board of Education unanimously voted to create
the Choice Scholarship Program in March 2011, it enacted the first
district-level school choice program in the nation. Voucher programs
are traditionally approved by state legislatures, but in Douglas
County, the local district supports the funding and administration of
the program. Subject to annual renewal, the program provides 500
tuition vouchers to students who are residents of Douglas County and
have been enrolled in a Douglas County public school for at least one
year. Eligible students can apply for the scholarships through a
lottery system.
But in June 2011, the scholarships were rescinded when the American
Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, the National ACLU Program on Freedom
of Religion and Belief, Americans United for the Separation of Church
and State and others filed suit, claiming the scholarship program
violated the Public School Finance Act and six provisions in the
Colorado constitution, including the establishment clause.
The ACLU won a preliminary injunction in district court. But in March
2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, rejecting
the plaintiffs’ establishment clause claims. The appellate court
applied the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
in Colorado Christian University v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir.
2008) which held the First Amendment was infringed when financial aid
was provided to students attending sectarian institutions but not to
students attending “pervasively sectarian” institutions.
According to the decision, “In assessing facially neutral student aid
laws, a court may not inquire into the extent to which religious
teaching pervades a particular institution’s curriculum.” In other
words, asking how “religious” a school is that receives funding is
itself a form of anti-religious discrimination.
The Supreme Court of Colorado has a chance to uphold the first locally
established school choice program in the country, but it also has a
chance to reaffirm what the U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld: that
public education is about educating students, not the physical space in
which that education takes place. Above all, it’s about parents being
empowered to choose options that are right for their children.
Other courts have decided this question already.
In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) the United States Supreme Court
ruled in favor of Ohio’s Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program,
holding that a state-sponsored voucher program is not per se
unconstitutional when the program is neutral with respect to religion
and the “money follows the child.” This is so even where parents
themselves choose to use the voucher monies to send their children to
religious schools.
And in a landmark state ruling last year, the Indiana Supreme Court
upheld the state’s voucher program stating that the program did not
violate the state’s prohibition against using state funds to benefit
religious institutions because the primary beneficiaries of the
vouchers were the families who used them.
Hundreds of families in Douglas County, Colo., have waited three years
to use their scholarships because of this suit. The Colorado Supreme
Court has a chance to give those families the opportunity to direct
their child’s education.
Read this and other articles with links at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
