• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colorado Court Rules Use of Public Funds for Private Schools Is Unconstitutional

That sounds like a separate argument. I haven't read the opinion, but if they did rule against for multiple reasons, then of course the aforementioned law could be found unconstitutional, but the overall decision not be overturned (though in that case, I don't know that it stands a very good chance of being considered by the SC).

The recent ruling didnt make this decision. It clarified. The decision was made years ago. Private religious schools have not been eligible for state funding for quite some time. This ruling happened because the county was awarding vouchers to kids in the area and the majority of them were using that money to attend private religious schools. Thus indirectly giving the school tax dollars, which is prohibited. Noone is arguing the overall ruling that these schools should not get tax dollars directly from the state or county. That is in place and is working well. This recent ruling only clarified that private religious schools that are not under state control cannot receive tax money even indirectly, in this case with vouchers.
 
The recent ruling didnt make this decision. It clarified. The decision was made years ago. Private religious schools have not been eligible for state funding for quite some time. This ruling happened because the county was awarding vouchers to kids in the area and the majority of them were using that money to attend private religious schools. Thus indirectly giving the school tax dollars, which is prohibited.
So again, the question is, why is this prohibited? The SC has ruled it constitutional to apply vouchers (indirect aid) to religious schools. If the issue was that the schools weren't following the curriculum, then they should have passed a law that made it illegal to provide indirect aid to schools that don't follow the curriculum.

Confused. Perhaps I'll have time to read the CSC ruling tonight.
 
No. It didn't.
Yes, it did.

See Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris

"The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients - not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits."
 
I love how you authoritarians try to use the Constitution to keep free people from making free choices. Oh, that's right, you leftists are pro choice lol. How about giving people the choice to use their own education dollars where they choose to use them? Not for that sort of choice are you.

Here's the lib idea of choice. "This is your one choice, you'll take it, and like it."
 
Here's the lib idea of choice. "This is your one choice, you'll take it, and like it."
Well you know how it worked in the old Soviet Union. Government provided the people with everything they needed. If they ran out of something like meat, the butcher would simply put a sign on the door: "Nobody needs meat today." Problem solved!
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/u...private-schools-is-unconstitutional.html?_r=0
Religious schools should not be receiving public monies - will say many critics BUT
you can't just discriminate against religious institutions while funding secular private ones. It would be like having a plank that said you can't fund schools run by blacks. A school is a school is a school, even if it is run by people the state doesn't approve of.

Religion is a choice, race is not...so the premise of argument is false. Public funding to be spent on religious indoctrination to a captive audience of children would most certainly be in violation of the first amendment where it says the government shall establish no religion. Colorado law simply re-enforces the first amendment to make it stronger in their state.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it did.

See Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris

"The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients - not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits."

And certain criteria has to be met in order to qualify for various disbursements. These schools don't meet that criteria. There is no constitutional violation.
 
And certain criteria has to be met in order to qualify for various disbursements. These schools don't meet that criteria. There is no constitutional violation.
Whether or not this particular program meets those criteria has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a state statute that dismisses all such programs out of hand.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/u...private-schools-is-unconstitutional.html?_r=0 Religious schools should not be receiving public monies - will say many critics BUT you can't just discriminate against religious institutions while funding secular private ones. It would be like having a plank that said you can't fund schools run by blacks. A school is a school is a school, even if it is run by people the state doesn't approve of.
I think this is a good ruling, the voucher system is just more elitism for those that can afford it and a guarantee that the level of funding for the public schools dwindles even further making the education in public schools even less effective.
 
Um, no. The NEA is running public education into the ground. Vouchers are a fair and equitable solution. Why should people be taxed for something they don't use?

So the current policies of the public education system are somehow applicable to the concept of public education entirely? The premise that you need to privatize a public service because it's not running perfectly is naïve. If you want to fix the problem of public education, diverting attention and funding to private schools instead of public schools will do precisely the opposite. If one actually wants to fix the public education system, that requires all parents in the community actually having a stake in the well-being of public education. Vouchers are certainly not a fair and equitable solution; they result in upper class parents taking their kids and their money out of the public school system, and then the top-performing rich students are going to make the private school look good. School vouchers need to abolished, and private schooling needs to be prohibited, because the premise that those with more money are entitled to a superior education is inherently flawed on its face. Education fuels progression towards the betterment of society and people have never had the right to not pay taxes because they object to the actions of the government. People who aren't farmers pay for farm subsidies, people above the poverty line pay for food stamps, etc, etc.

maybe if the public school system didn't stink then maybe people wouldn't be looking for solutions to solve the problem.

the question is why do you want to keep kids in bad public schools? I thought you were for poor kids? yet you want to keep them in bad schools that limit their education possibilities
why is that?

Privatization of education is one of the major factors contributing to public education's decline in the first place. But what makes public education inherently bad? Studies comparing American education to foreign education and then announcing in conclusion that "public education has failed!" are disingenuous because they compare American education to the top performing elite schools of foreign countries. Additionally, the top countries in public education have robust public school systems. Not to mention that a measurement of knowledge is obviously going to be very biased, regardless of who performs it.

School vouchers and privatization are saving the poor from failing public schools? That's rich. The poor aren't going to be able to afford to pay for tuition at a more successful private school. What school vouchers do is give the upper class parents an out so that they can segregate their children from those who can't afford to enroll in a prestigious private school. So while all of the money, volunteer time, and other forms of attention that higher incomes parents provide towards the schools their children are enrolled in is taken away from public schools and directed towards private ones, public schools are going to suffer from dwindling resources. And then when testing season comes around, the affluent private school will pass with flying colors, while the public school suffers, which shouldn't be unexpected. How do you expect poor kids to perform better than rich kids when the poor probably haven't even had an adequate amount of food to eat that day? Half of all students enrolled in public school are in poverty, after all.

LOL. Vouchers are not what is running government schools into the ground. If government schools were good, people would not try to get vouchers to escape them.

See my responses to Countryboy and ludin, because you're essentially bringing up the same points they are.
 
Last edited:
So the current policies of the public education system are somehow applicable to the concept of public education entirely? The premise that you need to privatize a public service because it's not running perfectly is naïve. If you want to fix the problem of public education, diverting attention and funding to private schools instead of public schools will do precisely the opposite. If one actually wants to fix the public education system, that requires all parents in the community actually having a stake in the well-being of public education. Vouchers are certainly not a fair and equitable solution; they result in upper class parents taking their kids and their money out of the public school system, and then the top-performing rich students are going to make the private school look good. School vouchers need to abolished, and private schooling needs to be prohibited, because the premise that those with more money are entitled to a superior education is inherently flawed on its face. Education fuels progression towards the betterment of society and people have never had the right to not pay taxes because they object to the actions of the government. People who aren't farmers pay for farm subsidies, people above the poverty line pay for food stamps, etc, etc.

I think we're seeing a pattern here. :roll: Forbid this, prohibit that, abolish this, and on and on. Tyranny is not the solution to anything, in a country where liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution.

There are plenty of areas that don't allow vouchers. We spend more per student in America than most nations, and yet our performance is poor. To claim all that's needed is more money is naive in the extreme. And to limit the options of parents is downright criminal. Vouchers are a fair and equitable solution because they allow all parents to choose, poor and rich alike.

There should be no farm subsidies, and there should be no free lunch for able bodied people. Able bodied people on welfare should be put to work by the government performing needed tasks throughout the community.

Privatization of education is one of the major factors contributing to public education's decline in the first place. But what makes public education inherently bad? Studies comparing American education to foreign education and then announcing in conclusion that "public education has failed!" are disingenuous because they compare American education to the top performing elite schools of foreign countries. Additionally, the top countries in public education have robust public school systems. Not to mention that a measurement of knowledge is obviously going to be very biased, regardless of who performs it.

Explain how private schools are contributing to the poor performance of public schools, please be specific. If all you have is, "we're not spending enough money", then don't bother.

Again, throwing more money at the problem is always the lib solution. But it never works.


School vouchers and privatization are saving the poor from failing public schools? That's rich. The poor aren't going to be able to afford to pay for tuition at a more successful private school. What school vouchers do is give the upper class parents an out so that they can segregate their children from those who can't afford to enroll in a prestigious private school. So while all of the money, volunteer time, and other forms of attention that higher incomes parents provide towards the schools their children are enrolled in is taken away from public schools and directed towards private ones, public schools are going to suffer from dwindling resources. And then when testing season comes around, the affluent private school will pass with flying colors, while the public school suffers, which shouldn't be unexpected. How do you expect poor kids to perform better than rich kids when the poor probably haven't even had an adequate amount of food to eat that day? Half of all students enrolled in public school are in poverty, after all.



See my responses to Countryboy and ludin, because you're essentially bringing up the same points they are.

You are just spewing lib talking points. The poor in this country aren't hungry. Have you ever been shopping at a grocery story around the first of the month? Give me a break. :roll: Tyranny is not the solution. If you want to live under an iron fist, go start your own dictatorship, leave free people alone.
 
I think this is a good ruling, the voucher system is just more elitism for those that can afford it and a guarantee that the level of funding for the public schools dwindles even further making the education in public schools even less effective.

What utterly idiot comments. The voucher system is the opposite of what you say. I'm not surprised though, libs always must lie to advance their agenda.

The rich can can afford to send their kids wherever they choose. It is the poor and middle class who benefit from vouchers. Duh. :roll:
 
Religion is a choice, race is not...so the premise of argument is false. Public funding to be spent on religious indoctrination to a captive audience of children would most certainly be in violation of the first amendment where it says the government shall establish no religion. Colorado law simply re-enforces the first amendment to make it stronger in their state.

I see, and liberal indoctrination to a captive audience is different how? Attending a Christian school is not "an establishment of religion". :roll: Good grief, lie after lie after lie after lie.
 
-snipped for space-

Taking action to prevent the destruction of public education is not justified because "liberty?" That's quite a leap in logic you've got there. Not to mention that abolishing school vouchers itself is abolition of a government program; I wouldn't expect that to be something to trigger a conservative anti-government kneejerk reaction. And while you may disagree with my ideas because they infringe on "liberty," your alternative does nothing to address the problem, since school vouchers create more segregation based on both class and race.

And does spending more money per student than any other nation include money spent on private education and school vouchers? Whether or not spending is effective does not depend on the spending rate being high or low. It matters what the money is being spent on. You're essentially saying that we spend a lot of money on education, so education will be more effective if we spend less money on it without any evidence to that effect. One has to look specifically at what's being purchased and invested in and examine what needs to be invested in and what is a waste of money. You haven't addressed my previous post about the flaws in studies claiming that our education is poor in comparison to other countries, so don't go around touting the "public education is a failure" narrative, when there is no evidence to support it.

Vouchers don't create an option for parents. They create an option for parents that can afford it. It makes no sense to claim that school vouchers help poor families; they don't help them whatsoever. It's been generally accepted for a century now that education is a right and access to it should not depend on someone's ability to pay. Vouchers are a direct violation of that because enrollees in private schools under vouchers are still required to pay tuition. And vouchers subsidizing a large portion of a private school's costs to run gives them an excuse to raise costs so they can rake in more profit. We are talking about a capitalist institution: they are running these schools to make a profit, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

Your opposition to farm subsidies and food stamps are irrelevant to the larger point. People pay for services they do not use. Let's use the example of a couple who chooses not to have children for whatever reason: whether education is public or private and funded through vouchers, they are paying for a system their children are not enrolled in. Infrastructure is another good example; a new highway is being built in the Midwest. I live on the west coast and won't regularly use the highway; should I have to pay taxes to fund it? Regardless, ideally all students would be enrolled in the public education system, so you wouldn't have to worry about parents whose students are enrolled in private schools paying for an education system they don't use.

Vouchers and moreover the privatization of public education are contributing to the decline of public schools because it's not a solution that everyone can use. Do you understand that even if a superior private school comes in and offers education to the community, people aren't going to opt to enroll their kids if they can't afford it? I believe I've already gone into this in detail, so I'm not sure why you're asking me to explain it again. It creates an option for the upper class families that can afford it, and those who can't are trapped in a public school with dwindling resources because of families leaving. So no, it's not as simple as "we're not spending enough money." We're spending money on private education, which is an utter waste of money. Voucher funds should be redirected towards public education.

"Again, throwing more money at the problem is always the lib solution. But it never works."

Again, with the grand sweeping statements with no evidence behind them. Do you not understand that it requires money to run a school? If a school cannot even have the basic supplies necessary for teaching, as many schools do not, they're going to fall behind. I think you may be in support of vouchers because you dislike the idea of high spending on education, but your tax dollars are still paying for vouchers.

"Lib talking points" sounds like an excuse to avoid addressing the points I've addressed. I don't think you understand the concept of poverty. I provided a source, but sure, your evidence can be muh grocery store on the 1st. :roll: In other countries, you are put to death for practicing certain religions or speaking out against the government, but according to you, tyranny is rich parents not being able to segregate their children from the masses? Your hyperbole is frankly offensive to people who actually suffer being in the unfortunate position of living under a tyrannical government.
 
I see, and liberal indoctrination to a captive audience is different how? Attending a Christian school is not "an establishment of religion". :roll: Good grief, lie after lie after lie after lie.

No, you don't see at all. You're too blind with your partisan lies and hate.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/u...private-schools-is-unconstitutional.html?_r=0
Religious schools should not be receiving public monies - will say many critics BUT
you can't just discriminate against religious institutions while funding secular private ones. It would be like having a plank that said you can't fund schools run by blacks. A school is a school is a school, even if it is run by people the state doesn't approve of.

Why should even more of my $$ go to other people's kids? I dont have kids.

If you want the benefits of private school, pay for it.
 
Yes, the constitution does not allow public money to be spent on religious schools. If there were schools that were specifically anti-religious (as opposed to merely teaching accurate science and history), they would likewise not be eligible for public money.

Recently, a private Catholic School here fired their assistant principal when they discovered he was married to his male partner.

I support their right to do so (even tho he's suing).

However I also dont believe they should receive any public funding (not just for this reason, but in general).

To me, refusing public funds enables them to retain their autonomy.

Notes: SSM has been legal here a few yrs and sexual orientation is a protected class in this state.
 
Am I the only one who noted that it was decided based on the Colorado Constitution and not the US Constitution? This has no relevance outside that state.

That doesnt mean it's not worth discussion.
 
maybe if the public school system didn't stink then maybe people wouldn't be looking for solutions to solve the problem.

the question is why do you want to keep kids in bad public schools? I thought you were for poor kids? yet you want to keep them in bad schools that limit their education possibilities
why is that?

I agree but I'd rather see public $ go to improving the public schools.
 
The rich can can afford to send their kids wherever they choose. It is the poor and middle class who benefit from vouchers. Duh. :roll:

And I object to the poor and middle class having the potential to be taught creationism in science class. That is a clear negative for society.
 
I agree but I'd rather see public $ go to improving the public schools.

:doh because throwing more money at it always solves the problem, however in this case it doesn't.
the only way to solve the problem is to close bad public schools and funnel the money and students into better schools in the area.

if you think that more money is going to fix inner city schools then well you are wrong.
 
And I object to the poor and middle class having the potential to be taught creationism in science class. That is a clear negative for society.

I object to you wanting to give kids a bad education. yes people with this mentality are negative for society.
they refuse to let kids attend schools in which would greatly benefit them in terms of education and success.

i guess it is easier to manipulate the educated masses verses educated people that have been taught to think for themselves.
 
That doesnt mean it's not worth discussion.

It also does not mean that it is wrong to put that discussion in proper context to the story so that people are not misled by the headline in the event that they assume this was based on the US Constitution.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/u...private-schools-is-unconstitutional.html?_r=0
Religious schools should not be receiving public monies - will say many critics BUT
you can't just discriminate against religious institutions while funding secular private ones. It would be like having a plank that said you can't fund schools run by blacks. A school is a school is a school, even if it is run by people the state doesn't approve of.

CO pretty much does everything right.
 
Back
Top Bottom