This week is National School Choice Week, and in his State of the State address Monday night, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval called for \u201cmore parental choice,\u201d including \u201cvouchers to make private school education a possibility for more families.\u201d To which Steve Sebelius of SlashPolitics wrote: <\/p>\n
\u201cOn education, Sandoval mentioned vouchers for private schools, but not the fact that a voucher equal to the state\u2019s current per-pupil expenditure will not enable poor children to afford tuition at many private schools. And, as Sandoval has already acknowledged, vouchers cannot be used for religious schools in Nevada until the state constitution is changed, a five-year process.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n No, a voucher in the amount of $5,000 will not enable poor children to attend the more expensive and elite private schools in Nevada; however, that amount WOULD be enough, more than enough in some cases, to attend other existing private schools. At the very least, it would help many parents on the \u201cbubble\u201d between being able to afford a private school and not being able to afford a private school.<\/p>\n In addition, as anyone who understands supply-and-demand economics knows, if thousands of parents in low-income and middle-class neighborhoods suddenly start waving around $5,000 vouchers, the private sector will find a way to fill that demand.<\/p>\n As for the contention that vouchers cannot be used in religious schools in Nevada until the state constitution is changed, that\u2019s not necessarily true either. What stands in the way is an anti-Catholic provision in the constitution called the \u201cBlaine Amendment.\u201d <\/p>\n However, Clint Bolick, author of \u201cVoucher Wars\u201d and one of the lead attorneys fighting in favor of a voucher program in Ohio some years ago, writes that anti-voucher teachers \u201cunions have contrived a new strategy in Blaine amendment states by contending that school choice would require an amendment to the state constitution, when in nearly all of the states, that\u2019s not true.\u201d<\/p>\n And the reason it\u2019s not true is that the United States Supreme Court, in its 2002 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision, established that it is absolutely possible to create a voucher program that neither violates the First Amendment nor the Blaine amendments providing funding goes to parents and not directly to religious schools.<\/p>\n What folks on this issue who raise the separation of church and state argument often miss is the FULL wording of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. To refresh your memory, it goes like this: \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\u201d <\/p>\n In other words, the First Amendment requires government NEUTRALITY with regard to religion, giving neither favor to nor discriminating against. Indeed, college students use government benefits from the G.I. Bill and Pell Grants to attend religious schools of higher learning. Using a Pell Grant to attend Notre Dame or Georgetown University does NOT \u201cestablish\u201d religion; however, denying a student the ability to choose either of those schools WOULD be discrimination BECAUSE of religion.<\/p>\n Writing for the majority in the Zelman case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist declared that \u201cwhere a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice, is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause.\u201d<\/p>\n In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that \u201cWhile the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers, poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society.\u201d<\/p>\n Thomas added that the Ohio voucher program \u201cdoes not force any individual to submit to religious indoctrination or education. It simply gives parents a greater choice as to where and in what manner to educate their children.\u201d<\/p>\n Bolick notes that \u201cthe majority decision (in the Zelman case) is the law of the land, and it has dissipated the largest single legal obstacle standing in the way of school choice.\u201d It establishes \u201cthe baseline principle that parents may be entrusted with the decision of how to direct the spending devoted to their children\u2019s education.\u201d<\/p>\n School choice through vouchers isn\u2019t about \u201cestablishing\u201d religion; it\u2019s about extending freedom – especially to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in America\u2019s inner cities where families don\u2019t have the financial resources the middle- and upper-class enjoy.<\/p>\n As Mr. Bolick notes, \u201cWe live in a society characterized by consumer choices \u2013 just about everywhere except in the most important service of all, elementary and secondary education.\u201d He concludes:<\/p>\n \u201cIt seems to me that the one obligation we all share as Americans is to leave a nation that is at least as free as the one we inherited. We\u2019ve got to make up for lost time. And freeing up our nation\u2019s educational system is a great place to start. The kids don\u2019t have any time to waste. We\u2019ve got to get going. Today. This minute.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Amen. And if the teachers union won\u2019t get out of the doorway and let our children free, then it\u2019s way past time to push them out of the way. So let it be written, Governor; so let it be done.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This week is National School Choice Week, and in his State of the State address Monday night, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval called for \u201cmore parental choice,\u201d including \u201cvouchers to make private school education a possibility for more families.\u201d To which Steve Sebelius of SlashPolitics wrote: \u201cOn education, Sandoval mentioned vouchers for private schools, but not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1701"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1702,"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701\/revisions\/1702"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/muthstruths.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}