Welcome to StudentsForum.net!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
   Your Students Forum and Resource Site! (Home) -> College Scholarships RSS
Next:  Serious Questions and Request for Help and Feedba..  
Author Message
buckeye-ELO

External


Since: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 1666



(Msg. 31) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:30 am
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>Neutral
>NeutralI don't have a problem with them teaching theology as
>:|long as the voucher money doesn't go for that part and
>:|if they keep to the law, i.e. the first ammendment and equal
>:|rights for people of all beliefs.


Pretty hard to separate it in a k-12 school

The Participating Schools. There are 122 private schools in the city of
Milwaukee that would have been eligible to participate in the Amended
Choice Program during the 1995-96 school year. See Agreed Upon Statement of
Facts, 24. Of those, 89 are sectarian and 33 are nonsectarian. Id., 25.
Approximately 84 percent of the pupils who attended private schools
during the 1994-95 school year attended religious schools. Id., 26.

The parties have provided the Court, as part of the Agreed Upon Statement
of Facts, the mission statements and other written materials prepared by
many of the religious schools that notified the Superintendent of Public
Instruction of their intent to participate in the Amended Choice Program
during the 1995-96 school year. Id., 27, Exhibit E. Those materials make
clear that religion is a pervasive part of each student's educational
experience at these schools. The participating schools announce
forthrightly that their mission is religious and that religious doctrine
will be instilled in their students:

* "Oklahoma Avenue Lutheran School is an integral part of the ministry of
Oklahoma Avenue Lutheran Church." Exhibit E to Agreed Upon Statement of
Facts, p. 535.

* "The mission of St. Leo and St. Rose Catholic schools is to share in the
parish evangelization effort through providing quality Catholic education
in grades pre-kindergarten through eight." Id. at 720.

* "The continuing purpose of St. Matthew Ev. Lutheran Church and School is
to go and tell the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ for the conversion of
unbelievers and the strengthening of believers in faith and Christian
living." Id. at 750.

* "St. Paul's Lutheran School exists to: -assist Parents in training
children in God's ways, teach God's Word to children, and -make disciples
of children." Id. at 790.

* "We believe our school exists to carry out the Savior's command to 'go
and make disciples" (Matthew 28:19). Consequently, our school's primary
reason for existence is to be a tool for bringing young souls to faith in
Jesus...." Id. at 275 (Fairview Lutheran School).

* "A prospective student whose parents are not members of a church will be
considered as mission prospects. Christ Lutheran Church/School considers it
a responsibility to teach the Word of God to those who have not heard this
blessed Word." Id. at 198.

* "The objectives of the [Clara Muhammad School] are: 1. To foster within
each student the principle of submissions to the will of Allah (God) as the
essential element in achieving human excellence." Id. at 227.

* "Holy Redeemer Christian Academy is an integral part of the ministry of
Holy Redeemer Church of God in Christ." Id. at 399.

* "As a Catholic high school, [Divine Savior Holy Angels High School] is
dedicated to promoting the beliefs and traditions of the Catholic Church."
Id. at 234.

* "The Yeshiva Elementary School of Milwaukee was initiated by members of
the Orthodox Jewish Community with the following objectives as their goals:

To teach elementary school children Torah and Mitzvos in accordance with
the ideals and aspirations of Torah as espoused by the G'Dolei Yisroel in
order to provide the excellence in Orthodox Jewish Education which will
prepare our children to attend the finest seminaries, Yeshivas and
institutions of Jewish higher learning. " Id. at 966.

* "The function of St. Bemadette Day School is to provide for Christian
individuals opportunities for growth in faith, for formation, for
development." Id. at 614.

* "First and foremost Garden Homes Lutheran Church conducts and maintains a
Christian elementary school to assist Christian parents in the training and
nurturing of their children in the Word of God." Id. at 316.

As the schools' literature emphasizes, one of the primary means by which
these schools accomplish their religious missions is by integrating the
religious and secular aspects of the schools' educational programs.

* "In keeping with the purpose of our school, our curriculum is taught in
the setting of God's Word. Religion is not only taught as a subject, but
our teachers have been trained to integrate God's Word across the
curriculum. ... Our curriculum offerings place Christ as the focal point
for all study," Id. at 414, 417 (The Lutheran Chapel of The Cross Church
and
School) .

* "Each class is taught by a dedicated Christian teacher who believes in
Biblical concepts of salvation. Teachers strive to build into the
curriculum a philosophy of Christian living that includes moral and
spiritual values." Id. at 471 (Milwaukee Junior Academy (Seventh-day
Adventist)).

* "Emmaus Lutheran Church and School is a Christian institution, NOT a
private school. The Holy Gospel is the center of our curriculum." Id. at
259." "[Elverything that confronts the child in the educational program
offered by St. Matthew Ev. Lutheran School will be presented in the light
of His inspired, inerrant word of truth and power." Id. at 750.

* "The children will be thoroughly trained in the fundamental subject areas
needed for a successful life here on this earth. It is our aim that these
subjects be taught in accordance to Scripture and that all things related
to the children's educational life be permeated with God's
Word." Id. at 792 (St. Paul's Lutheran School).

* "Christian teachings are fostered in all classes, but especially in the
religion program." Id. at 106 (All Saints Catholic Elementary School).

* At St. Veronica Catholic Elementary School, "Christian-Centered
Education" means "Integrating Catholic faith in all academic areas." Id. at
841.

* "The students of St. Alexander's are not only taught the basic truths of
their religion; they are also exposed to the Christian attitudes and
ideologies which pervade their school environment." Id. at 553.

* "The message of Jesus is taught in religion classes and other curricular
areas. ... Because of the nature of a Catholic school, religion is taught
daily as part of the curriculum. Catholic values are also incorporated into
all other aspects of the curriculum." Id. at 614, 617 ( St.Bernadette
School).

* "The Bible forms the core and center upon which all instruction is based.
Each day is opened with a devotion followed by instruction in Christian
doctrine and Bible study. Our school gives due instruction in all branches
of academics, which are required by the State of Wisconsin. All subjects
are taught by a Christian teacher in the light of God's Word,
emphasizing God's love for all men through Jesus." Id. at 131 (Bethlehem
Lutheran School).

* "All subject areas in our school are Christ-centered," Id. at 323 (Gospel
Lutheran School).

* "We Believe...that the Christian School, where every subject is taught
from the Christian point of view, related to the teachings of Christianity
and permeated with the spirit of Christianity, can be more successful in
leading children to a vital Christian life than any other agency, except
the Christian home." Id. at 534 (Oklahoma Avenue Lutheran School).

* "We teach all the traditional subjects, but we teach them
differently--from a Christian perspective." Id. at 526 (Mount Olive
Lutheran School).

 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Archie-Leach

External


Since: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 16



(Msg. 32) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: alt>education (more info?)

This message is not archived

 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Archie-Leach

External


Since: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 16



(Msg. 33) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court laughs at DANA [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
Archie-Leach

External


Since: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 16



(Msg. 34) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
buckeye-ELO

External


Since: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 1666



(Msg. 35) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Dana <dana RemoveThis @255.255.255> wrote:

>:|Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>Neutral
>Neutral> Dana <dana RemoveThis @255.255.255> wrote:
>Neutral>>This paragraph taking from the article that jailbird posted clearly
>Neutral>>shows that the bill does not violate the 1st Amendment.
>Neutral>
>Neutral> The Florida court ruled vouchers unconstitutional based on the Florida
>Neutral> Constitution and not the 1st amendment, so your claim is not worth
>Neutral> addressing.
>Neutral
>Neutral
>:|The federal Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and they said
>:|you are wrong. So once again a leftist court will be slapped for trying
>:|to legislate from the bench. The people of Florida and their legislature
>:|enacted this law, which does not in any form violate Florida state
>:|Constitution, nor does it even violate the Federal Constitution.
>:|And the claim I made here is valid, as the anti religion leftist bigots
>:|who are trying to change this law, are indeed using Separation of church
>:|and state as an issue. An issue the law in question does not violate, as
>:|it clearly states nobody can be forced to pray or forced to accept a
>:|paticular religious belief.

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION


ARTICLE I-Declaration of Rights

Sec. 3. Religious freedom

There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom
shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or
safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency
thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or
indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid
of any sectarian institution.

ARTICLE VII-Finance and Taxation

Sec. 3. Taxes; exemptions.

ARTICLE IX-Education

Sec. 6. State school fund

The income derived from the state school fund shall, and the principle of
the fund may, be appropriated, but only to the support and maintenance of
free public schools.
=========================================================

Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
Protecting Religious liberty by keeping chuch and state separate

Voucher battle moves to Congress, states
http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/News/2002news/07.12voucherfollow.html
*************************************************************************************

Legal Battle Over Vouchers Just Starting

By Megan Twohey, Staff Writer, Stateline.org

Get ready for round two.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that they are
constitutional, school vouchers face more legal challenges ahead.

That’s because over half the states have at least one amendment to their
state constitution that restricts public funding of religious institutions.
These amendments are not affected by the Court’s ruling, and voucher
opponents are already gearing up to use them to battle the creation of new
voucher programs.
http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=250774

****************************************************************************************
A Preview of the Pending Supreme Court Decision in Locke v. Davey

By: Professors Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle, George Washington University Law
School
Publication Date: 10/14/2003
Date Last Updated: 10/14/2003

Description: The case of Locke v. Davey, to be argued in the U.S. Supreme
Court in early December, could have a great impact on President Bush's
Faith Based Initiative, often described as the top domestic priority of the
Bush administration. In the 2002 Report on the State of the Law, we
described the origins and import of the so-called “Baby Blaine Amendments,”
a widely adopted genre of state constitutional provision designed to impede
state transfers of funds or property to religious institutions, especially
schools.[2] Thirty-seven states have constitutional provisions that
explicitly forbid state financing of religious organizations, and ten
states have constitutional provisions that extend these limitations to both
"direct” and "indirect" financing. These state constitutional restrictions
on government transfers to religious groups may create significant
impediments to state service contracts with, or grants to, faith-based
organizations. As federal restrictions on government interaction with
religious groups have lessened, state constitutions have come to the fore.
Litigation about the meaning, and the validity under the federal
constitution, of the Baby Blaine Amendments, has heated up since the
publication of the 2002 Report.[3] Indeed, the case of Locke v. Davey[4]
may turn out to be as important for the constitutional future of the
Faith-Based Initiative as the Court’s landmark rulings in Mitchell v. Helms
and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.[5].
**********************************************************************************
Weblog: Supreme Court Clouds Church-State Rules
Supreme Court: States don't have to treat "devotional theology" like all
other subjects
The Supreme Court stood on its head today. Actually, had five of the seven
justices actually done headstands in the Supreme Court building, it would
perhaps have been less of a surprise than today's decision in Locke v.
Davey.

Here's a little history: In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the
University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court said that the government
must fund a religious publication if it funds other student publications.
In Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), the Supreme Court
similarly said that a public school can't ban a religious group if it opens
the door to all other groups.

Hear the principle? Open the door to some, open the door to all—even the
religious.

It seemed straightforward enough, but apparently the Supreme Court is
singing from a different songbook than thought. Today, it said that
Washington State may deny scholarships to students pursuing
religion-related degrees even if the door is open to all other areas of
study. In other words, it seems, the state may discriminate against
religion.

Washington is one of 36 states with what's known as a "Blaine amendment" in
the state constitution. These amendments, part of an anti-Catholic campaign
a century and a half ago, ban any public funding of religious education.
And seven of the justices have no problem with that.

"Washington's program imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any
type of religious service or rite," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
wrote for the court majority. "It neither denies to ministers the right to
participate in community political affairs … nor requires students to
choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.
… . The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of
instruction."

Ah, but the court didn't pretend like religion had nothing to do with it.
"Training for religious professions and training for secular professions
are not fungible," Rehnquist wrote. "Training someone to lead a
congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. Indeed, majoring in
devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic
pursuit." And giving a state scholarship for that that, Rehnquist
suggested, is troublesome and un-American. "We can think of few areas in
which a State's antiestablishment interests come more into play," he said.
"Since the founding of our country, there have been popular uprisings
against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which was one
of the hallmarks of an 'established' religion.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/legal/legal_update.cfm?id=20
******************************************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob LeChevalier

External


Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4011



(Msg. 36) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education (more info?)

Dana <dana.DeleteThis@255.255.255> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> Dana <dana.DeleteThis@255.255.255> wrote:
>>>This paragraph taking from the article that jailbird posted clearly
>>>shows that the bill does not violate the 1st Amendment.
>>
>> The Florida court ruled vouchers unconstitutional based on the Florida
>> Constitution and not the 1st amendment, so your claim is not worth
>> addressing.
>
>The federal Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue,

The Federal Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the Florida Constitutional
provision against funding sectarian institutions.

>and they said you are wrong.

Nope. And indeed their ruling in other cases is more relevant than
their ruling in the Zelman case that you are probably referring to.

>So once again a leftist court will be slapped for trying
>to legislate from the bench. The people of Florida and their legislature
>enacted this law, which does not in any form violate Florida state
>Constitution,

But it does.

Article I, Section 3.
<No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof
< shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly
< in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of
< any sectarian institution.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3...b=statu

Article IX, Section 6.
<SECTION 6. State school fund.--The income derived from the state
< school fund shall, and the principal of the fund may, be
< appropriated, but only to the support and maintenance of free public
< schools.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jeff Strickland

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 79



(Msg. 37) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Dana" <dana.TakeThisOut@255.255.255> wrote in message
news:10t1dussgf6292c@corp.supernews.com...
> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>
> >
> > <buckeye0ELO.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:a550t098nnpn5jn1ncudhtut1pm6l8i5i9@4ax.com...
> >> CHURCH & STATE DECEMBER 2004 page 3 (243)
> >> AU BULLETIN
> >> http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2004_12
> >> [EXCERPTS]
> >>
> >> Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers
> >>
> >> A state appeals court has struck down Florida's voucher program,
> >> holding that it clearly violates a provision of the Florida
> >> Constitution by funneling tax money to religious schools.
> >>
> >> The 1st District Court of Appeal, sitting as a full panel en bane,
> >> ruled Nov. 12 that Gov. Jeb Bush's Florida Opportunity Scholarship
> >> Program (OSP) fails to pass constitutional muster.
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > I wonder what the consensus is on this here in a.a.
> >
> > Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
> > to block vouchers is bogus. (I have some guesses about
> > the real reasons behind the opposition.) With some minor
> > regulations and controls I see no reason that religious schools
> > should not be allowed to be part of the public education
> > system.
>
> This paragraph taking from the article that jailbird posted clearly shows
> that the bill does not violate the 1st Amendment.
>
> Religious schools taking part in the program may require students to
> attend
> religious instruction classes but cannot compel them to pray or take part
> in other forms of religious worship.
>

But Dana, as a practical matter, wouldn't you as a parent actually want your
child to participate in any and all forms of religious worship if you
elected to enroll your child in a religious based school? Wouldn't you
exclude religious schools from your option list if those schools taught
religion other than that which you support? For example, if you were
Catholic, you would not send your kid to a Jewsih school. You might send
your kid to the school operated by the Calvary Chapel, but that would be
your second choice - again, assuming you were Catholic. But if you sent your
kid to a religious school, my assumption is that you would actually WANT
your kid to learn some manner of religion, and therefore participate in the
worship programs? I know I would want my kids to do that, else I wouldn't go
the effort of getting them into the school in the first place.




> >
> > <faceous mode on>
> > And afterall, no organization has created more atheists than
> > the Catholic school system.
> > </faceous mode off>
> >
> > --
> > rb, aa#2187
>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 15



(Msg. 38) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)

"Gray Shockley" <CyberGray.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BDF61AC80004D819163ACD20@news.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:59:34 -0600, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote
> (in message <WI_zd.37961$Ew6.19892@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>
> >> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
> >> desire.
> >>
> >> Seperation is still maintained that way.
> >
> > Yup. That disarms the separation issue.
> > The separation issue is a red herring.
>
>
> That's very nice for sweet urban youth;
> what "plan" do you advocate for the
> hundreds of thousands (millions?) of
> students who live 45 minutes to an
> hour away from their schools?
>
>
> Am I correct that the "voucher position" is "Screw rural people"?
>
>
> In this (kinda urban) area, 95% of the school children ride on big yeller
> buses. How are you going to get your boys and girls to and from your
"voucher
> school"? Priced Blue Birds lately?
>
> Textbooks are an ongoing expense for all students' education; where are
your
> voucher children going to get their textbooks?
>
> And there are many other expenses connected with your "voucher school".
>
> How much insurance is your "voucher school" going to buy?
>
> To whom are the accounting & financial books going to be open? Are your
> "voucher schools" going to be for profit? Allegedly "non-profit"?
>
> Accreditation? Computers? Provisions for medical problems? Music? Sports?
> Drama? Breakfast & lunch programs? What is a school cafeteria within the
> precepts of city, county & state sanitary and nutritional regulations? Is
> your cafeteria going to have a nutritionist?
>
> What are you planning to do about children who cut classes?
>
> What type of biology, chemistry and physics laboratories classrooms and
lab
> equipment will you have? How 'bout "home ec" labs? Drivers education
(priced
> auto insurance for a teenaged boy lately with and without it)?
>
> How many foreign languages are you going to have?
>
> Are seniors (or gifted juniors) going to be able to take DE and pre-calc
and
> calc?
>
> What's the ration of students to urinals and commodes as well as
lavatories.
> What entity is going to inspect them regularly?
>
> How large a library is your "voucher school" going to have? Who is going
to
> choose what books are going to be in it? Is accreditation partially
dependent
> on this library? Are you to have full-time librarian/librarians?
>
> What type of building are you going to have? What construction materials?
> Sprinkler system for fires? Fire alarms in all rooms? Fire insurance?
>
> How much administration is going to be necessary and/or desired?
>
> PA system?
>
> What type of discipline is going to be used.
>
>
> These aren't minor factors to be glossed over; these are real concerns.
>
> Not "that'll work itself out" nor "we'll get more 'stuff' every year" nor
> "That's technical items and I'm a 'concepts' man".
>
> Let's deal with some specifics here in "alt.education". And I would
imagine
> that experienced education folks have some really important questions.
>
>
> Or are you a dreamy-eyed visionary caught up in the romance of "Utopia"
> ("utopia" means "no such place").
>
> This should be wonderful for those who want to deal in "facts" rather than
> "opinions".
>
> Got facts?

Are there private schools now?
What percentage of them are the bookless, insuranceless, computerless,
educationless institutions that you describe?

--
rb #2187
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 15



(Msg. 39) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.DeleteThis@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10t104dn8ev5r24@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Tak" <notanemail.DeleteThis@youspambastards.com> wrote in message
> news:uvj0t0l73eiarosmreios7u5aej8109dmo@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
> > <oscar.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
> > >to block vouchers is bogus.
> >
> > I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for public
> > education for any family able to prove recognised "alternate"
> > schooling for their children.
> >
> > THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
> > desire.
> >
> > Seperation is still maintained that way.
> >
>
> That has been tried, and it doesn't work.
>
> Most education is funded from property taxes, not income taxes. Yes, some
> income tax dollars find their way to the public school system, but most
> school dollars come from property taxes. If we give tax breaks to people
> that pull their kids from public schools, two things happen. We shift the
> tax break from the property tax rolls and onto the income taxes as an
> unfunded liability,

Why can't it be a property tax break rather than an income tax
break?

> and many people with children in the public schools pay
> less in school taxes collected in property tax than it costs to educate a
> kid. For example, I think my property taxers that go to schools is only a
> few hundred dollars per year, the voucher is on the order of $4500 per
kid -
> I don't know the exact amount of a voucher, I just wanted to illustrate
that
> the voucher is larger than the individual's tax base upon which it is
drawn,
> and is larger than the tax break that could be passed through the income
tax
> system. The reason that property taxes can fund schools is because there
are
> so many parcels that are taxed, but have no children residing on them that
> attend schools. For example, my street once had 37 kids living in 19
homes,
> for an average of 2 kids per home. Some of the homes had no kids living in
> them, others had 4. Today, there are still 19 homes, but only about 8 kids
> in school. The population of school age kids has been cut in half on my
> street. Since everybody pays the same taxes, then there are people now
> paying school tax but have no kids in school.
>
> I think that if people are going to be encouraged to pull kids from public

I don't view that as the objective.

> schools in an effort to reduce enrollment and thereby improve education
for
> those that remain, then we ought not become annoyed at where those people
> take their kids. If the cost to educate a kid is 7000, but we only give a
> parent a voucher for 4500, then we are keeping 2500 to spread among the
> fewer remaining kids in the public school.

Sounds good to me.

> The parent that receives the
> voucher has to kick in the additional monies between the voucher amount
and
> the actual cost of the education. Clearly, the voucher would barely cover
> the cost of the basic education,

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

> and the parents would be covering any
> additional education they felt was important, including but not limited to
> religious education. And, schools seldom make money, the vast majority of
> religious schools draw money from the collection plate to cover the costs
of
> running the school, they do not pull money from the school operations and
> fill the collection plate. So, vouchers fund education, not religion.
>
> There are lots of reasons to oppose vouchers, church-state separation
isn't
> one of them. Of course, the liberal justice system will not agree with me,
> but that is to be expected. I also think that vouchers should be required
to
> pass in the voting booth, not be sent through as a legislative exercise.
> Yes, I vote for my legislators, and they enact new laws. But sometimes a
law
> needs the direct support of the voters themselves. How do we decide which
> laws need direct support? I do not have an answer to that question.

I was talking to a 25 yo single mother who had a 5 year old son.
At the time there was general public discussion of a voucher system
proposal.
It would have given parents $5000 / year / child.
She said she opposed vouchers. Some time later in the conversation
she said that she had had her son in a private school.
She lamented that she could no longer afford to send
him to that private school. (She has a clerical job.)
I asked her how much the private school cost. She said, $3000.
I wonder what kind of logic she was using to oppose vouchers.


--
rb #2187
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jeff Strickland

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 79



(Msg. 40) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:0XgAd.54783$gd.1874@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.TakeThisOut@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:10t104dn8ev5r24@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Tak" <notanemail.TakeThisOut@youspambastards.com> wrote in message
> > news:uvj0t0l73eiarosmreios7u5aej8109dmo@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
> > > <oscar.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
> > > >to block vouchers is bogus.
> > >
> > > I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for public
> > > education for any family able to prove recognised "alternate"
> > > schooling for their children.
> > >
> > > THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
> > > desire.
> > >
> > > Seperation is still maintained that way.
> > >
> >
> > That has been tried, and it doesn't work.
> >
> > Most education is funded from property taxes, not income taxes. Yes,
some
> > income tax dollars find their way to the public school system, but most
> > school dollars come from property taxes. If we give tax breaks to people
> > that pull their kids from public schools, two things happen. We shift
the
> > tax break from the property tax rolls and onto the income taxes as an
> > unfunded liability,
>
> Why can't it be a property tax break rather than an income tax
> break?
>

I suppose it could, but the voucher is for roughly $4500, and most people
pay less property tax than that. And, you also run into the problem of
giving a prop tax break while your kids are in school, then removing that
tax break when they graduate. And, you have an issue with two neighbors, one
pays his full tax while the other pays none. And, the one paying the tax
derives no benefit, the one that is escaping the tax also derives a benefit.



> > and many people with children in the public schools pay
> > less in school taxes collected in property tax than it costs to educate
a
> > kid. For example, I think my property taxers that go to schools is only
a
> > few hundred dollars per year, the voucher is on the order of $4500 per
> kid -
> > I don't know the exact amount of a voucher, I just wanted to illustrate
> that
> > the voucher is larger than the individual's tax base upon which it is
> drawn,
> > and is larger than the tax break that could be passed through the income
> tax
> > system. The reason that property taxes can fund schools is because there
> are
> > so many parcels that are taxed, but have no children residing on them
that
> > attend schools. For example, my street once had 37 kids living in 19
> homes,
> > for an average of 2 kids per home. Some of the homes had no kids living
in
> > them, others had 4. Today, there are still 19 homes, but only about 8
kids
> > in school. The population of school age kids has been cut in half on my
> > street. Since everybody pays the same taxes, then there are people now
> > paying school tax but have no kids in school.
> >
> > I think that if people are going to be encouraged to pull kids from
public
>
> I don't view that as the objective.
>

Sure it is. Admittedly, it is a gross oversimplification of the issue, but
the goal is to remove kids from the public school system so the kids that
remain can get a better education.

Vouchers are not an effort to displace public schools with another system of
education, they are an effort to provide people an alternative to public
education so that children that remain in public schools will receive a
greater ratio of dollars per student. Let me see if I can illustrate the
principle. There are 100 kids, and it costs 7500 per year to educate them.
(I have no idea that this number is accurate, I am only trying to illustrate
the effect that vouchers will have on the remaining students.) Given these
numbers, there is 750,000 dollars available for all students. Now, let's say
that 25 of them leave the public school and they take a voucher for 4500.
The total number of dollars for the school drops to (750,000 - (25 x 4500)),
or 637,500. But the student population is now 75, so the dollars per student
becomes (637,500 / 75), 8500. This is 1000 per student more that the public
school gets to use. This is an increase in funding of 13%. The actual
increase is dependent upon using the correct numbers, but you should get the
idea. Additionally, with 100 kids, there needs to be 3 classrooms with 33
kids each, with 75 kids, the same three classrooms only need to hold 25
kids. The attention of the teacher to any given kid will improve, leading to
a better learning experience for the kids.

I do not suggest this will actually work, but this is the party line on the
argument.



> > schools in an effort to reduce enrollment and thereby improve education
> for
> > those that remain, then we ought not become annoyed at where those
people
> > take their kids. If the cost to educate a kid is 7000, but we only give
a
> > parent a voucher for 4500, then we are keeping 2500 to spread among the
> > fewer remaining kids in the public school.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> > The parent that receives the
> > voucher has to kick in the additional monies between the voucher amount
> and
> > the actual cost of the education. Clearly, the voucher would barely
cover
> > the cost of the basic education,
>
> I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.
>
> > and the parents would be covering any
> > additional education they felt was important, including but not limited
to
> > religious education. And, schools seldom make money, the vast majority
of
> > religious schools draw money from the collection plate to cover the
costs
> of
> > running the school, they do not pull money from the school operations
and
> > fill the collection plate. So, vouchers fund education, not religion.
> >
> > There are lots of reasons to oppose vouchers, church-state separation
> isn't
> > one of them. Of course, the liberal justice system will not agree with
me,
> > but that is to be expected. I also think that vouchers should be
required
> to
> > pass in the voting booth, not be sent through as a legislative exercise.
> > Yes, I vote for my legislators, and they enact new laws. But sometimes a
> law
> > needs the direct support of the voters themselves. How do we decide
which
> > laws need direct support? I do not have an answer to that question.
>
> I was talking to a 25 yo single mother who had a 5 year old son.
> At the time there was general public discussion of a voucher system
> proposal.
> It would have given parents $5000 / year / child.
> She said she opposed vouchers. Some time later in the conversation
> she said that she had had her son in a private school.
> She lamented that she could no longer afford to send
> him to that private school. (She has a clerical job.)
> I asked her how much the private school cost. She said, $3000.
> I wonder what kind of logic she was using to oppose vouchers.
>
>

To be perfectly clear, I oppose vouchers too. My opposition isn't on
religious grounds though. My opposition is that vouchers appear today to be
awarded to poor people. The trouble I have is that if we accept the notion
that public schools can cost more than the voucher amount, then we are
asking poor people to subsidize an education for their kids that they can
not afford to subsidize. If they get a voucher for $4500, and education
really costs $6500, where are they going to get $2000 for the subsidy?
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
buckeye-ELO

External


Since: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 1666



(Msg. 41) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.DeleteThis@yahoo.net> wrote:
>Neutral
>:|Vouchers are not an effort to displace public schools with another system of
>:|education,

The Dominions, reconstructionist and many others are the far radical
religious right want to do exactly that which you say they aren't trying to
do. They do want to replace the public school system.

But then, you are usually uninformed about the things you post about.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dana

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 88



(Msg. 42) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education (more info?)

Jeff Strickland wrote:

>
> "Dana" <dana.DeleteThis@255.255.255> wrote in message
> news:10t1dussgf6292c@corp.supernews.com...
>> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <buckeye0ELO.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> > news:a550t098nnpn5jn1ncudhtut1pm6l8i5i9@4ax.com...
>> >> CHURCH & STATE DECEMBER 2004 page 3 (243)
>> >> AU BULLETIN
>> >> http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2004_12
>> >> [EXCERPTS]
>> >>
>> >> Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers
>> >>
>> >> A state appeals court has struck down Florida's voucher program,
>> >> holding that it clearly violates a provision of the Florida
>> >> Constitution by funneling tax money to religious schools.
>> >>
>> >> The 1st District Court of Appeal, sitting as a full panel en bane,
>> >> ruled Nov. 12 that Gov. Jeb Bush's Florida Opportunity Scholarship
>> >> Program (OSP) fails to pass constitutional muster.
>> >
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>> > I wonder what the consensus is on this here in a.a.
>> >
>> > Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>> > to block vouchers is bogus. (I have some guesses about
>> > the real reasons behind the opposition.) With some minor
>> > regulations and controls I see no reason that religious schools
>> > should not be allowed to be part of the public education
>> > system.
>>
>> This paragraph taking from the article that jailbird posted clearly
>> shows that the bill does not violate the 1st Amendment.
>>
>> Religious schools taking part in the program may require students to
>> attend
>> religious instruction classes but cannot compel them to pray or take
>> part in other forms of religious worship.
>>
>
> But Dana, as a practical matter, wouldn't you as a parent actually want
> your child to participate in any and all forms of religious worship if
> you elected to enroll your child in a religious based school?

Actually I would look at the school on what is best for the childs
educational needs, the religious nature of the school would be
secondary, so long as they taught the 3 r's.

Wouldn't
> you exclude religious schools from your option list if those schools
> taught religion other than that which you support?

The only religion I would exclude would be millitant islam.


For example, if you
> were Catholic, you would not send your kid to a Jewsih school. You
> might send your kid to the school operated by the Calvary Chapel, but
> that would be your second choice - again, assuming you were Catholic.
> But if you sent your kid to a religious school, my assumption is that
> you would actually WANT your kid to learn some manner of religion, and
> therefore participate in the worship programs? I know I would want my
> kids to do that, else I wouldn't go the effort of getting them into the
> school in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > <faceous mode on>
>> > And afterall, no organization has created more atheists than
>> > the Catholic school system.
>> > </faceous mode off>
>> >
>> > --
>> > rb, aa#2187
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dana

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 88



(Msg. 43) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)

Archie-Leach.TakeThisOut@getit.com wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:57:10 -0900, Dana <dana.TakeThisOut@255.255.255> wrote:
>
>>Tak wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
>>> <oscar.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>>>>to block vouchers is bogus.
>>>
>>> I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for public
>>> education for any family able to prove recognised "alternate"
>>> schooling for their children.
>>>
>>> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
>>> desire.
>>>
>>
>>Being that most families that send their children to school, do not pay
>>any taxes for that.
>>Most school funding comes from home and business owners.
>
> Bullshit

Again, Gary shows us how stupid and ignorant he is.
School funds come from property taxes. Try again Gary, let us see you
make a fool of yourself again.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dana

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 88



(Msg. 44) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court laughs at DANA [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Archie-Leach RemoveThis @getit.com wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:51:46 -0900, Dana <dana RemoveThis @255.255.255> wrote:
>
>>Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <buckeye0ELO RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a550t098nnpn5jn1ncudhtut1pm6l8i5i9@4ax.com...
>>>> CHURCH & STATE DECEMBER 2004 page 3 (243)
>>>> AU BULLETIN
>>>> http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2004_12
>>>> [EXCERPTS]
>>>>
>>>> Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers
>>>>
>>>> A state appeals court has struck down Florida's voucher program,
>>>> holding that it clearly violates a provision of the Florida
>>>> Constitution by funneling tax money to religious schools.
>>>>
>>>> The 1st District Court of Appeal, sitting as a full panel en bane,
>>>> ruled Nov. 12 that Gov. Jeb Bush's Florida Opportunity Scholarship
>>>> Program (OSP) fails to pass constitutional muster.
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the consensus is on this here in a.a.
>>>
>>> Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>>> to block vouchers is bogus. (I have some guesses about
>>> the real reasons behind the opposition.) With some minor
>>> regulations and controls I see no reason that religious schools
>>> should not be allowed to be part of the public education
>>> system.
>>
>>This paragraph taking from the article that jailbird posted clearly
>>shows that the bill does not violate the 1st Amendment.
>>
>>Religious schools taking part in the program may require students to
>>attend
>>religious instruction classes but cannot compel them to pray or take
>>part in other forms of religious worship.


Gary is still posting his forged ad.
Well Gary that is all you have left after everyone here has kicked your
ass, and made a fool of you. Now take your dick out of your mouth and
tell us why your wife left you.
Seems you could not fight against any men, so you tried beating your
wife, and even she kicked your ass.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dana

External


Since: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 88



(Msg. 45) Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>education (more info?)

Archie-Leach.RemoveThis@getit.com wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:57:10 -0900, Dana <dana.RemoveThis@255.255.255> wrote:
>
>>Tak wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:09:58 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
>>> <oscar.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Even though I am an atheist I think the separation argument
>>>>to block vouchers is bogus.
>>>
>>> I would support a tax break equal to the amount withdrawn for public
>>> education for any family able to prove recognised "alternate"
>>> schooling for their children.
>>>
>>> THEN the families can give money to the "church schools" if they so
>>> desire.
>>>
>>
>>Being that most families that send their children to school, do not pay
>>any taxes for that.
>>Most school funding comes from home and business owners.
>
> Bullshit

As gary proves once again he has no idea of what is going on.
Go back to picking your nose gary, you have no idea of what you are
talking about.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
Constitutionality of School Vouchers - http://www.aclj.org/resources/studrts/vouchers/memo_of_law.asp Memorandum of Law on the Constitutionality of School Vouchers The ACLJ is committed to the principle that parents are responsible for the education of their children and that parents have the...

Tough Choice: Kettering + Scholarship vs. University of Fl.. - Hello, I've been accepted to Kettering University in Flint, Michigan. (I've also been accepted to UW-Madison, UF, UMCP, & Georgia Tech). All I know about the school is that it has a strong co-op program. I am wondering if anyone can tell me somethin...

Vouchers come to D.C. - School vouchers to start by fall By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES Education Secretary Rod Paige said the school-voucher program in the District will be available for low-income D.C. students this fall, clearing the way to implement the..

Yes, Vouchers Are Constitutional - http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_4_yes_vouchers.html Yes, Vouchers Are Constitutional Richard E. Morgan It has become an American reflex over the past generation for advocates who lose in the political arena to try to kill in the courts what they can....

Vouchers take it on the chin again - Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:24:56 -0500 From: Americans United <corbin@au.org> To: Me Subject: AU @ctivist :: Fed Appeals Court Rules Against Mandatory Funding of Religious Education PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE For Immediate...
   Your Students Forum and Resource Site! (Home) -> College Scholarships All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 3 of 9

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You c