Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:h0t7t0tppf0cmntnhfuuatdrumc9881r3k@4ax.com...
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:bt56t0lji86g6hqt70jj5pef3t6jkr7l9j@4ax.com...
>>> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:
>>>>How is school choice selfish?
>>>
>>> Parents are selfish for their own interests and those of their kids
>>> (as they perceive them). The state is charged with protecting the
>>> interests of the citizenry at large. Those without kids in school
>>> have substantially different priorities for education than those with
>>> kids in school, and those without kids are the ones paying most of the
>>> taxes.
>>
>>You are so completely and totally full of shit! Nobody has a greater
>>interest in the education of a child than the child's own parents, crappy
>>parents notwithstanding.
>
> I said nothing about "greater". I said "different priorities". The
> businessman down the street gains NOTHING from your kid being educated
> in religion; he does potentially gain by your kid being educated in
> marketable skills and the responsibilities of citizenship in our
> nation.
>

As a parent, I don't give a rat's ass what anybody's priorities are. The
only priority for my kid's education is the priority I place on it. The
businessman down the street does benefit from the education my kid gets
because educated customers are better for his business, and better for the
business climate in general. Well, I suppose an educated customer might
steer clear of a particular business, in which case the businessman wil not
appreciate any education - religious or otherwise.

What, do you think that church-based schools have kids sit around chanting
and reading the Bible all day? That is absurd - but then, you are an idiot
so I can see how you would think this.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher RemoveThis @yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:10t8eg276erir36@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi RemoveThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
> news:cr0al5$4vg2$1@news3.infoave.net...
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10t729rcjug2ve4@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi RemoveThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cqvd2u$4lcv$1@news3.infoave.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Dalland" <cdalland RemoveThis @cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:xREAd.155195$8G4.5463@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >> > those without kids are the ones paying most of the
> > > >> > taxes.
> > > >> >
> > > >> How is that???
> > > >
> > > > Assuming you work for 47 years (18 to 65), only about half of that
> > > > time ---
> > > > or less - are you the parent of a school-aged child. This time is
also
> > > > early
> > > > in the parent's career, and salaries increase with time, so parents
> tend
> > > > to
> > > > earn a lot more once their kids are out of school. That is, people
> earn
> > a
> > > > whole lot more - and pay a whole lot more in taxes - in the second
> half
> > of
> > > > their career than in the first. Take into consideration that parents
> pay
> > a
> > > > whole lot less in taxes (extra deductions) . Now throw in adults
that
> > > > never
> > > > had children and it is apparent that parents of kids in school pay
> less
> > > > towards their education than adults without kids in school.
> > > >
> > > > larry
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whoa Larry. In California, there is a tax ceiling known as Prop. 13.
It
> > says
> > > in a nutshell that property taxes do not increase over time. So, a guy
> > buys
> > > a house and raises a family. Assuming he continues to live in that
> house,
> > > his taxes remain flat and the increases are very small.
> >
> > Invald assumption - most people "move on up" as their family gorws and
> thier
> > affluence increases.
> >
> > larry
> >
>
> My father sold a house 40 years ago, the same family lives in it today. He
> sold another house 37 years ago, the same family lives in it. He sold
> another 34 years ago, the same family still lives in it. He sold a house
to
> my brother and I in 1983, my brother still lives in it. I bought a house
in
> 1989, I still live in it.
>

Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes at that -
do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years . If they
didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used home market,
and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes being built?

Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too. While
large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have this rule.

Additionally you ignored the fact that home ownership is more likely with
advancing age and advancing income ---
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr304/q304tab7.html --- shows
less tha a quarter of twentysomethings own thei home but more than 3/4 of
those over 45 do.

> I suspect my assumption is closer to accurate than your assertion.

I KNOW your assumption is baselles, unfounded, and inacurate.

My first
> house was a condo. My wife and I lived in it until our first child was 3.
We
> moved to the house we live in now, and our first child is now 18. I
suspect
> more people have a profile similar to mine than to my father's.
>
>

Uh, no. Sales of Existing Homes Surge to a Record High ---
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing30dec30,0,1080796.story?c...=la-hom
Looks like a whole lotta "movin' on up" goin' on.

Larry

>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

> Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes at
> that -
> do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years . If they
> didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used home
> market,
> and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes being
> built?
>

Unprovable? It's a matter of public record. Having access to the public
record as a matter of my job, I happen to know without doubt that at least
three of the homes my father has sold still belong to the families he sold
them to. I know without a doubt that my brother still lives in the house
that he and I bought from my father, and I still live in the house my wife
and I bought 15 years ago. Anecdotal, my ass.

Of course people buy and move up, but many many people buy a home and live
in it for the rest of their life. Being actively involved in real estate, I
can say that most people do not move more than twice once they settle into
home ownership. Yes, there are notable exceptions to that statement.



> Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too. While
> large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have this rule.
>

Well, yes, CA is only one state. It is the most populous state though, and
it makes a reasonably good example of the point that we are trying to
illustrate.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10t98afc73m7neb@corp.supernews.com...
> > Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes at
> > that -
> > do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years . If
they
> > didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used home
> > market,
> > and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes being
> > built?
> >
>
> Unprovable? It's a matter of public record. Having access to the public
> record as a matter of my job, I happen to know without doubt that at least
> three of the homes my father has sold still belong to the families he sold
> them to. I know without a doubt that my brother still lives in the house
> that he and I bought from my father, and I still live in the house my wife
> and I bought 15 years ago. Anecdotal, my ass.
>
> Of course people buy and move up, but many many people buy a home and live
> in it for the rest of their life. Being actively involved in real estate,
I
> can say that most people do not move more than twice once they settle into
> home ownership. Yes, there are notable exceptions to that statement.
>
>
>
> > Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too. While
> > large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have this
rule.
> >
>
> Well, yes, CA is only one state. It is the most populous state though, and
> it makes a reasonably good example of the point that we are trying to
> illustrate.
>
>

Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
defeat.

larry

>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:8hs7t0h651e9drkb90u5tdm9nt66b83sf4@4ax.com...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>>news:kc56t09j9sfprlh3q6c1umu3uaj1e8dkj1@4ax.com...
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.RemoveThis@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
>>>>>> I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
>>>>>> The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
>>>>>> entities is voided.
>>>>>> The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
>>>>>> give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
>>>>>> for money from the keeper of the funds.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the way I look at it as well. The government money flows to the
>>>>>parents, who in turn direct where it is used.
>>>>
>>>> That is not what he said. The government money flows from the "keeper
>>>> of the funds" (the government agency administering vouchers) and the
>>>> school.
>>>
>>>Come on Bob! You must be a product of public education! It is exactly what
>>>he said, and nothing like what you said.
>>
>> What part of "the school trades the voucher for money from the keeper
>> of the funds" do you not understand?
>
>You said that, not the person I was talking to.

Wrong again. That quote is taken from the innermost quote above which
is from a post by the guy you were arguing with:
>From: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net.pa>
>Message-ID: <ZHBAd.41030$Ew6.28975@twister.socal.rr.com>
>Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:20:57 GMT

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.RemoveThis@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 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I said nothing about "greater". I said "different priorities". The
>> businessman down the street gains NOTHING from your kid being educated
>> in religion; he does potentially gain by your kid being educated in
>> marketable skills and the responsibilities of citizenship in our
>> nation.
>
>As a parent, I don't give a rat's ass what anybody's priorities are.

Tough. When you pay the bills, what you think matters. In the public
schools, what you care about is no more important than what I care
about, or others who don't have kids in school care about.

>The only priority for my kid's education is the priority I place on it.

Only if you pay the bill yourself. Otherwise the ones that DO pay the
bill get some say.

>The businessman down the street does benefit from the education my kid gets

Not from any education in religion, he doesn't.

>because educated customers are better for his business,

Not from any education in religion, he doesn't - unless he runs a
Christian bookstore or something similar.

>What, do you think that church-based schools have kids sit around chanting
>and reading the Bible all day?

Every minute they spend being indoctrinated in religion, they aren't
learning something else.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.RemoveThis@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 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:0od9t0h5ij73r2icssolicjcgv3o1u7vrq@4ax.com...
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:8hs7t0h651e9drkb90u5tdm9nt66b83sf4@4ax.com...
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:kc56t09j9sfprlh3q6c1umu3uaj1e8dkj1@4ax.com...
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.TakeThisOut@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
>>>>>>> I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
>>>>>>> The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
>>>>>>> entities is voided.
>>>>>>> The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
>>>>>>> give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
>>>>>>> for money from the keeper of the funds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the way I look at it as well. The government money flows to the
>>>>>>parents, who in turn direct where it is used.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what he said. The government money flows from the "keeper
>>>>> of the funds" (the government agency administering vouchers) and the
>>>>> school.
>>>>
>>>>Come on Bob! You must be a product of public education! It is exactly
>>>>what
>>>>he said, and nothing like what you said.
>>>
>>> What part of "the school trades the voucher for money from the keeper
>>> of the funds" do you not understand?
>>
>>You said that, not the person I was talking to.
>
> Wrong again. That quote is taken from the innermost quote above which
> is from a post by the guy you were arguing with:



Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I was agreeing with him. He
made a statement (a few of them actually) that I agree with. I specifically
agreed with his statement relative to what you are saying, and I do not
agree with your position, your alteration of the original statement
notwitstanding.

To bring that down to your level, I agree with him, I am arguing with you.
It really hurts to have to bring myself down so low as to be able to
converse with you, but I'll keep trying.

Ron Said
Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
entities is voided.
The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
for money from the keeper of the funds.

Jeff Said
That's the way I look at it as well. The government money flows to the
parents, who in turn direct where it is used.


<Bob subsequently said>
What part of "the school trades the voucher for money from the keeper of the
funds" do you not understand?


You left out the most important part of what Ron said. The actual flow of
voucher money is from government to parents. Parents direct where the money
gets spent. The schools redeem the vouchers for the services they provide to
the parents. In this model, I can see where you might complain, but your
complaints are unfounded in logic or reason. Any judge that agrees with your
complaint lacks logic and reason, and one must wonder how such a man or
woman ever became a judge in the first place.

For your complaint to be valid, one must completely ignore the actual
voucher mechanism.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi.DeleteThis@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:cr2b6i$5u67$1@news3.infoave.net...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10t98afc73m7neb@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes at
>> > that -
>> > do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years . If
> they
>> > didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used home
>> > market,
>> > and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes being
>> > built?
>> >
>>
>> Unprovable? It's a matter of public record. Having access to the public
>> record as a matter of my job, I happen to know without doubt that at
>> least
>> three of the homes my father has sold still belong to the families he
>> sold
>> them to. I know without a doubt that my brother still lives in the house
>> that he and I bought from my father, and I still live in the house my
>> wife
>> and I bought 15 years ago. Anecdotal, my ass.
>>
>> Of course people buy and move up, but many many people buy a home and
>> live
>> in it for the rest of their life. Being actively involved in real estate,
> I
>> can say that most people do not move more than twice once they settle
>> into
>> home ownership. Yes, there are notable exceptions to that statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too. While
>> > large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have this
> rule.
>> >
>>
>> Well, yes, CA is only one state. It is the most populous state though,
>> and
>> it makes a reasonably good example of the point that we are trying to
>> illustrate.
>>
>>
>
> Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
> report
> that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
> acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
> defeat.
>
> larry
>

Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.

1. 20-somethings have babies that are not in school yet, or are perhaps in K
or 1st grade.
2. 30-somethings are buying homes in record numbers.
3. 40-somethings in the links YOU provided are precisely the people with
kids in middle schools and high schools, where the greatest dissatisfaction
with public schools exists.
4. Lots of older people are buying smaller homes that are cheaper to own and
easier to maintain. They are effectively buying down, not up. They are
moving out of homes they owned for 30+ years and taking equity dollars and
paying cash for homes with no mortgage, and often in retirement communities
that have taxation rules that even shield them from school taxes that you
claim they are paying.
5. The 40-somethings that are buying homes today are paying substantially
more than their parents paid, therefore the younger people are paying more
property taxes, not less. <caveat, I am discounting the people that live in
luxury homes and focussing on the normal tract home owners. People in luxury
homes are not having problems with schools that are addressed by voucher
plans.>

Personally, I would pay school taxes well into my 80s, even after my own
grand kids are long out of school because I know that educating children is
very important. I don't care that my neighbors might want their kids to
attend religious schools with my tax dollars. Somebody's religion is their
own business, and educating their children is more important than any
religion that may come from the choice of schools.

I prefer public schools, of that there is no question. But I have to conceed
the point that public schools in many places fall short of the goals placed
on them. Given the concession, if vouchers are selected as a relief
mechanism, then I can't tell a voucher recipient that they can only select
from non-religious education options.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

> Every minute they spend being indoctrinated in religion, they aren't
> learning something else.
>

You are so totally clueless. How do you even function?
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

You know, Bob, I just noticed that you have nothing at all to say in the
thread about PBS being used as a tool to spread Islam. Your objection to
religion seems to be centered on the spread of Christian ideals within a
family where the parents themselves work to bring Christ to their own
children. Why is that Bob? Why would you care what parents want to with
their own children when what the parents want includes Christ, but you
apparentl do not care what a parent wants when the parent wants Islam?
Aren't you just a bit hypocritical?
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:0od9t0h5ij73r2icssolicjcgv3o1u7vrq@4ax.com...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>>news:8hs7t0h651e9drkb90u5tdm9nt66b83sf4@4ax.com...
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:kc56t09j9sfprlh3q6c1umu3uaj1e8dkj1@4ax.com...
>>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher.TakeThisOut@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, I've changed my mind on that.
>>>>>>>> I'm in favor of a straight voucher system.
>>>>>>>> The complete prohibition of transfering funds to sectarian
>>>>>>>> entities is voided.
>>>>>>>> The schools system gives the parents vouchers, the parents
>>>>>>>> give the voucher the to the school, the school trades the voucher
>>>>>>>> for money from the keeper of the funds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's the way I look at it as well. The government money flows to the
>>>>>>>parents, who in turn direct where it is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what he said. The government money flows from the "keeper
>>>>>> of the funds" (the government agency administering vouchers) and the
>>>>>> school.
>>>>>
>>>>>Come on Bob! You must be a product of public education! It is exactly
>>>>>what
>>>>>he said, and nothing like what you said.
>>>>
>>>> What part of "the school trades the voucher for money from the keeper
>>>> of the funds" do you not understand?
>>>
>>>You said that, not the person I was talking to.
>>
>> Wrong again. That quote is taken from the innermost quote above which
>> is from a post by the guy you were arguing with:
>
>Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

No.

>I was agreeing with him.

You said that you did, indeed. But what he describes is money going
from the government to the school, and you described something else.

>He
>made a statement (a few of them actually) that I agree with. I specifically
>agreed with his statement relative to what you are saying, and I do not
>agree with your position, your alteration of the original statement
>notwitstanding.

I don't give a damn whether you agree with me. Your opinion is
ignorant and irrelevant. My point is simply that he said:
>the school trades the voucher for money from the keeper of the funds.

which means that the money is transferred from the keeper of the funds
(the government) to the school. Which is NOT what you said when you
agreed with him, saying
>The government money flows to the parents

when in fact the parents see no money at all.

><Bob subsequently said>
>What part of "the school trades the voucher for money from the keeper of the
>funds" do you not understand?
>
>You left out the most important part of what Ron said. The actual flow of
>voucher money is from government to parents.

He did not say that ANY money goes from government to parents. His
only mention of money is from the "keeper of the funds" to the school.

>Parents direct where the money gets spent.

Not relevant. They do not actually get the money, and they do not
actually spend the money.

Parents already direct where the money gets spent. They chose where
to live, and therefore money gets spent on the school district that
their kid is enrolled in. But there is no specific dollar amount
attached to each kid.

>The schools redeem the vouchers for the services they provide to
>the parents.

No. They redeem the vouchers for money, whether they provide any
services or not. The Florida voucher fraud cases should have made
this clear. All they need is the name of a voucher kid, and to claim
that he is enrolled, and they get the money. They don't have to do
squat for the kid. The parents are stuck for the year - they can't
withdraw their kid and get the voucher or the money back.

>In this model, I can see where you might complain, but your
>complaints are unfounded in logic or reason.

Whereas everything you say is unfounded in fact.

>Any judge that agrees with your complaint lacks logic and reason,

Sorry, but I suspect that judges have a good deal more logic and
reason than you've evidenced (none).

>and one must wonder how such a man or woman ever became a judge in the first place.

Either elected or nominated by an elected politician and confirmed by
a legislative body

>For your complaint to be valid, one must completely ignore the actual
>voucher mechanism.

No. It is YOU who ignores the ACTUAL mechanism, instead "reasoning"
based on your idealized abstraction of the mechanism. It is ONLY in
the abstract that one can claim that money goes to the parents. You
can claim with some basis that the parents get a say in where the
money gets spent, but only in the sense that they direct what school
gets the money - how and where the school spends that money, they have
no say in.

But all this is irrelevant, since I was merely correcting your
misstatement of where the *money* goes, not where your idealized and
abstracted control of funding went. A voucher is not itself "money",
any more than the coupons you get in your junk mail are "money".

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@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 

>>For your complaint to be valid, one must completely ignore the actual
>>voucher mechanism.
>
> No. It is YOU who ignores the ACTUAL mechanism, instead "reasoning"
> based on your idealized abstraction of the mechanism. It is ONLY in
> the abstract that one can claim that money goes to the parents. You
> can claim with some basis that the parents get a say in where the
> money gets spent, but only in the sense that they direct what school
> gets the money - how and where the school spends that money, they have
> no say in.
>
> But all this is irrelevant, since I was merely correcting your
> misstatement of where the *money* goes, not where your idealized and
> abstracted control of funding went. A voucher is not itself "money",
> any more than the coupons you get in your junk mail are "money".
>

Your ignorance of what really happens is why you have so much trouble with
this. Your selectiveness of taking statments in partial context - or out of
context entirely - is why you will never understand what is going on.
 >> Stay informed about: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers