More

Indiana Voucher Program Likely To Be Upheld, Judge Denies Block

By KEN KUSMER   08/15/11 09:13 PM ET   AP

INDIANAPOLIS -- A judge Monday declined to halt Indiana's broad new school voucher program, saying the law was "religion-neutral" and likely to be upheld.

The measure passed this year by the Republican-dominated General Assembly and signed into law by GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels is the nation's broadest private school voucher program. A group of teachers and religious leaders backed by the Indiana State Teachers Association is challenging it, claiming it violates the state constitution by providing public money to religious institutions.

However, in his ruling denying a temporary injunction, Marion Superior Court Judge Michael Keele wrote the law "is religion-neutral and was enacted `for the benefit' of students, not religious institutions or activities."

"It permits taxpayer funds to be paid to religious schools only upon the private individual choices of parents," Keele wrote in siding with the state.

Attorneys for the state argued that a temporary injunction could have forced students who received vouchers to leave their private schools just as the academic year was beginning and to scramble to re-enroll in public schools.

They also contented the voucher system is legal because the state isn't directly funding parochial schools directly. Instead, it gives scholarship vouchers to parents, who can choose which school to use them at.

"I am thrilled with the court's ruling, which will ensure that I and other parents all over Indiana will have true educational choice this school year," said parent Heather Coffy, whose three children all received vouchers to attend Roman Catholic schools.

Coffy was one of two Indianapolis women who were allowed to join the case. They are represented by the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based school choice advocate.

The law allows even middle-class parents to use taxpayer money to send their children to private secular and religious schools. About 2,800 Indiana students have been approved for the state-funded scholarships, and Attorney General Greg Zoeller said more than 150 of them used the vouchers to enroll in private schools that started last week.

In declining to halt the law, Keele wrote that the Indiana Supreme Court has long understood it's up to the General Assembly – not the courts, taxpayers or school corporations – to decide how Indiana children should be educated. In a ruling two years ago, the state's highest court also said education policy was a political question off limits to judicial intervention.

Keele ruled only on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Their complaint challenging the law hasn't gone to trial yet.

Indiana State Teachers Association President Nate Schnellenberger said the union will take a few days to evaluate Keele's decision.

"Obviously, we're disappointed in the judge's ruling. We think the case has merits," Schnellenberger said.

Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett, named as a defendant in the case, said the ruling was "in the best interest of Indiana children."

One of the plaintiff's attorneys, John West, argued before Keele last week that vouchers helped religious schools recruit new students – and potentially new members – they otherwise wouldn't have reached.

A message was left at West's Washington, D.C., law office seeking comment on the ruling.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST EDUCATION

INDIANAPOLIS -- A judge Monday declined to halt Indiana's broad new school voucher program, saying the law was "religion-neutral" and likely to be upheld. The measure passed this year by the Republic...
INDIANAPOLIS -- A judge Monday declined to halt Indiana's broad new school voucher program, saying the law was "religion-neutral" and likely to be upheld. The measure passed this year by the Republic...
INDIANAPOLIS -- A judge Monday declined to halt Indiana's broad new school voucher program, saying the law was "religion-neutral" and likely to be upheld. The measure passed this year by the Republic...
INDIANAPOLIS -- A judge Monday declined to halt Indiana's broad new school voucher program, saying the law was "religion-neutral" and likely to be upheld. The measure passed this year by the Republic...
Filed by Emmeline Zhao  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 63
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:07 PM on 08/18/2011
Just so that everyone heard me: In the 2002 Supreme Court ruling (Zelman v. Simmons-Ha­rris)vouchers were deemed constituti­onal if tax dollars followed a child to a school, even if it were religious.

Once again, vouchers have been ruled constituti­onal regardless of what a state constitution or court may say.
Mountain Momma
Seemed like a good idea at the time
01:02 AM on 08/20/2011
If it were that simple, Tad, vouchers would already be the law of the land in every red state. It's not that simple. State constitutions with Blaine Amendments forbid the use of state funds going to religious organizations. Zelman had nothing to do with Blaine. It was a ruling on the applicability of the Establishment Clause to voucher programs.

For anyone who wants more information, you can go to www.blaineamendments.org. From that site, re: this discussion: "Now that the Supreme Court has cleared the last remaining federal obstacle to school choice programs (Zelman held that well designed voucher programs do not violate the Establishment Clause), supporters are finding that their states' Blaine Amendments may prohibit such programs."

Zelman did not and does not answer the Blaine issue. Any number of law review journals have been written on the topic since the Zelman decision.
11:39 AM on 08/20/2011
Most things are usually pretty simple, but made more complicated by some. I call it the "graying" of America.

If the federal courts rule it constitutional, then the time is at hand in state courts. From the website you mention: "The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is currently challenging the legality of several Blaine Amendments as violations of the U.S. Constitution. In a series of Supreme Court amicus briefs—first in Mitchell, then in Zelman, and again in Locke—The Becket Fund has worked to build awareness among the Justices of the role of nativism in the history of hostility toward funds for religious schools."

This has been my point. If it is found to be a constitutional at the federal level, it will be at the state level too, it just may take some time.
11:00 AM on 09/02/2011
Howdy, remember me?

Both you and TadH make good points. Your point emphasizes what I said the last time we discussed this issue: State constitutions can be STRICTER than the federal constitution.

TadH: Zelmann vs. Simmons-Harris doesn't MANDATE school vouchers. What it says is that, if a state has a voucher program, it has to be structured similar to the one in Cleveland, namely:

- It must serve a secular purpose (in this case, educaton).

- It must benefit a general class of people (i.e. poor black students).

- It must not favor religious schools over non-religious ones.

- It must provide students religious and non-religious options in education.

The overwhelming amount of kids using those vouchers in Cleveland at religious was due SOLELY to the choice of the parents, not the choice of the government.
06:23 PM on 08/21/2011
there are two things that confuse me about that ruling. first, the assumption that the point of vouchers is to enable those without means to have the choice that those with mean have. If that truly were the intent of the law then vouchers would only be for low or low to middle income families, which of course they never are. secondly, since the money is given to the parent, why do they need to use it in a school? if the parent has no choice but to pass it on to an educational institution, regardless of which one, its not really accurate to say its for the parent is it? if it were, the parent could just keep the money and not send their child to school.. or 'say' they were home schooling ..
11:08 AM on 09/02/2011
Wrong on that one! In the Zelman case, most of those vouchers went to inner-city black children. Same goes for the DC Opportunity Scholarships.

The parents don't get a blank check or just "money". They get a voucher. You can't use a school voucher to buy a flat-screen TV. It is for the parent to use for their child(ren) at a school (public or private, secular or religious).

Furthermore, you don't just "say" you are home-schooling. You MUST get permission from the state, well in advance. Take it from someone who's been there and done it. Sitting on my desk as I type this is my county's notice that they have received our "Notice of Intent to Provide Home Instruction". The county asked for a detailed description of the curriculum that my wife will be using.

The reason we can do this is that they've received documentation (i.e. testing and transcripts) and have confirmed that my daughter has made satisfactory academic progress and can continue to be homeschooled.
01:54 AM on 08/18/2011
"A group of teachers and religious leaders backed by the Indiana State Teachers Association is challenging it."

It is good to see that not ALL religious people in America support the far-rights push to boost the coffers of religious institutions with TAX dollars!!
Mountain Momma
Seemed like a good idea at the time
07:21 PM on 08/17/2011
Indiana has a Blaine Amendment which states, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution." Typical Blaine language. Voucher programs have not held up in states with Blaine language in their constitutions.
06:56 PM on 08/18/2011
Ahhh, but you missed the 2002 Supreme Court decision (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris), which partially voided these "Blaine Amendments", when it ruled that vouchers were constitutional if tax dollars followed a child to a school, even if it were religious.

Vouchers are legal and Constitutional.
Mountain Momma
Seemed like a good idea at the time
02:58 AM on 08/19/2011
No, I didn't. Zelman had nothing to do with Blaine, but was all about the Establishment Clause, further clarifying interpretations from Lemon v. Kurtzman, Mueller v. Allen, Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills, & Agostini v. Felton. Zelman addressed the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It had nothing to do with Blaine Amendments in state constitutions and Blaine was not mentioned in the decision; they could have chosen to tackle that question in Locke v. Davey, but specifically stated they were not addressing the Blaine question ("Neither Davey nor amici have established a credible connection between the Blaine Amendment and Article I, §11, the relevant constitutional provision. Accordingly, the Blaine Amendment’s history is simply not before us." ~ from Rehnquist's written decision) That's why voucher proponents have now realized they have to do a two-pronged attack to pass state-by-state voucher legislation. First, they try to pass a constitutional amendment, removing the Blaine Amendment, stating they are trying to correct a horrible decision that was based on anti-Catholic sentiment, then they try to pass new voucher legislation, since the Blaine hurdle would be cleared. Sandoval, governor of Nevada, tried it this session but the budget issues were too overwhelming so it got shelved.

If there's been an important decision on vouchers in the last 10 years, trust me, I haven't missed it. On the contrary, I've probably written about it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
07:12 PM on 08/17/2011
This is money laundering, pure and simple.
05:14 PM on 08/17/2011
Look, like it or not, state tax dollars should go for the education of the state's children, not to a specific educational institution. Vouchers allow for this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
07:10 PM on 08/17/2011
They also allow for public funds to be allocated to support religious institutions, which is a big fat wrong a lot higher up on the scale.
09:02 PM on 08/17/2011
No...they allow parents to decide where they want their children to get their education. Sometimes it is religious, sometimes not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thanks4Watching
Daily dose of cynicism
04:19 PM on 08/17/2011
Recent Indiana high school graduate here. Indiana schools are struggling to afford athletic programs, school lunches, and even to keep the air conditioning on during the brutal weather we've been having. I shudder to think of what my little sister is going to have to suffer through during the winter when they can't turn the heater on. So, after cutting funds for public education, Mitch Daniels then decides we need to give taxpayers' dollars to religious schools?

Nice priorities, Mitch. Real nice. I don't know how this man sleeps at night.
11:20 AM on 08/17/2011
Finally some good news and fairness to the system. As long as Religious schools meet standards regulated by the school there should be no issues going to them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
07:10 PM on 08/17/2011
Except for that whole public dollars paying people to evangelize to kids.
09:09 PM on 08/17/2011
So? Have you read the first Amendment? Do you understand its scope and purpose?

The government must take a neutral role with religion (can't support nor interfere with it).

If the parent decide where the voucher goes (public, private, military, religious, etc...), the government is not directly involved and thus there is absolutely no issue. Period.
04:49 AM on 08/17/2011
Another misguided person who's placing the interests of the students and parents in front of the hard working /underpaid/empathic public employees. Vote Walker out of office!
12:51 PM on 08/17/2011
Student FIRST, Unions last.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thanks4Watching
Daily dose of cynicism
04:21 PM on 08/17/2011
I just graduated from high school in Indiana. I can personally attest to the fact that Mitch could care less about public school students in his state.
08:05 PM on 08/16/2011
The kids of Indiana are the winners
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thanks4Watching
Daily dose of cynicism
04:22 PM on 08/17/2011
What do we win, exactly? He cut funds from public schools to pay for vouchers for religious schools. Thanks to him, our district recently stated that they're going to have to leave the heater off for two hours every day during school in the winter.

Yeah, we won. Definitely.
01:56 PM on 08/18/2011
Only religious schools? No military schools? No non-religious private schools?
04:34 PM on 08/16/2011
From the article: "It permits taxpayer funds to be paid to religious schools only upon the private individual choices of parents,"

Yes...it is not direct government support of religion if the parents decide where it goes. Finally, common sense used in this issue.
08:52 PM on 08/16/2011
Sounds like a shell game to me.
04:50 AM on 08/17/2011
Well,think it through again . It takes some folks a little longer. No need to be ashamed of it
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
07:11 PM on 08/17/2011
The mafia do this sort of thing when they set up dummy companies to launder money.
09:05 PM on 08/17/2011
What???. Comparing voucher supporters with the Mafia? Are you nuts, man? Put down the cool-aid.
photo
TROOPER-X
Opportunity is Equal, not Wealth.
02:48 PM on 08/16/2011
Choice is good. Unless the public schools are met with a challenge, the monopoly will sustain the complacency. Parents can best decide what is best for their child, not individuals looking for a meal ticket.
06:07 PM on 08/21/2011
I beg to differ. Choice may feel good because it feels like it provides power for parents to control their own child's destiny a tiny bit more. But in my opinion, choice is one of the reasons our education system appears to be doing so poorly at the moment. Choice has allowed those with means the 'choice' to leave public education and since they statistically perform better, that depresses public school performance.
Choice encourages segregation, by whatever metric. that inherently depresses the quality of the educational environment for the 'lower levels of the scale' according to that metric. That situation also reduces access to peers with higher expectations and more education-related hobbies. Choice also discourages commitment to schools, which reduces parental involvement and community 'buy-in'. This doesnt mean that choice cannot be a good thing, but its simple existence does not guarantee that.
And lastly, many parents have no idea what is best for their child, especially when they are first-time parents. Often they end up figuring it out, or believing they have. But too often, they also do not, and sometimes dont even want to bother. imho of course..
12:05 PM on 08/16/2011
Most parents desire a quality education for their children.

Most parents possess the ability to objectively evaluate the merits of education options for their children.

Education has the largest number of union workers in the nation.
12:05 PM on 08/16/2011
Too bad. It would be better for the majority of kids in Indiana if it had been halted. Hopefully when the court actually decides on the program, they'll find it unconstitutional, but the way things are going, that's by no means assured. Sadly, the desire of a few parents to scam some government money looks like it might trump the need to properly fund public education for all students.
04:31 PM on 08/16/2011
What??? Scam some government money? Keep in mind, it's really our money the government spends.
08:59 PM on 08/16/2011
They would love to privatize all education in Indiana. Their agenda is blatant. They don't want to pay for it, why else would they lower the qualifications to teach in Indiana by saying teachers do not need masters degrees to be highly qualified? They also sent out a contract to all teachers mandating that they sign it. That should be cause for concern for everyone in The land of the Free.
08:33 AM on 08/17/2011
...and it's supposed to spend our tax money to benefit society as a whole, not dole it out to a few parents looking for a cash handout. Public schools benefit society as a whole. Vouchers are a scam.
11:27 AM on 08/16/2011
ah, good ol' vouchers.. yet another way to reduce the affluent's tax burden..

keep in mind that about 10% of our nation's kids attend private schools. These are kids whose parents pay taxes that are allocated to public education, but who dont use the public education system. This is factored into current education funding. Vouchers, however, change that by diverting money for those kids who are currently in private school away from public education. This will mean an effective 10% reduction in education funding relative to other state obligations. It can also mean an increase in private school tuition as those schools attempt to remain 'exclusive' (one of the whole points of private school). On that point, note the explicit mention that the voucher goes to the parents and not to the institution. The laws are written in this way so that private schools that end up getting the money dont have to comply with civil rights laws (ie can freely discriminate), which they'd have to do if the money were intended for the institution (like pell grants in college). Vouchers thus allow people to completely opt out of public education, and, more importantly, paying for it. And thats not even getting into the question of whether parents will use the money in a 'questionable' manner.

This is a couple more nails in the coffin of public education in this country.
04:32 PM on 08/16/2011
...as it should be. Competition getting to you?
05:12 PM on 08/16/2011
should be, really? you dont think kids in this country should have access to public education?
Anyway, there is no competition here. Its a subsidy for private school kids from taxpayers at the expense of public school kids; with the ability to discriminate written right into the law. And its quite probable that all current public school kids would get a worse education under a voucher law than they do now from public school. How is that competition? Competition still is about quality right?
11:05 AM on 08/16/2011
ah, good ol' vouchers.. essentially another way to reduce the affluent's tax burden.. :-)

keep in mind that about 10% of this nation's kids go to private schools (some areas its much higher). Those are kids whose parents pay taxes that go to public schools but who do not make use of the public schools and thus whose money can be used for everyone else (this is already built into the current funding system). Vouchers change that by diverting those kids' allocations away from the public school system and to private schools instead. Those who are in public school but leave for private with a voucher take their money with them, but also remove their educational overhead from the public system so its (almost) a wash (almost because non speced and ell kids leave at higher rates than those subgroups, making the remaining kids more expensive to educate). But parents of kids who are already in private school will now get that money in the form of a brand new subsidy. Look for at least a 10% decrease in public education funding as a result of this and probably an associated increase in private school tuition as private schools fight to remain 'exclusive'.

Another nail in the coffin of public education.
11:28 AM on 08/16/2011
whoops, comment posted twice.. sorry..