Then here’s the next most interesting thing about this study: “The study found that while the raw scores of fourth graders in Roman Catholic schools, for example, were 14.3 points higher than those in public schools, when adjustments were made for student backgrounds, those in Catholic schools scored 3.4 points lower than those in public schools.” That’s right – these government funded researchers fudged the numbers based on different “backgrounds.”

So, read your own conclusions into the study. Even so, it has no bearing on the program at issue in Florida, since those schools in which students were eligible were, by definition failing.

Then here’s the next most interesting thing about this study: “The study found that while the raw scores of fourth graders in Roman Catholic schools, for example, were 14.3 points higher than those in public schools, when adjustments were made for student backgrounds, those in Catholic schools scored 3.4 points lower than those in public schools.” That’s right – these government funded researchers fudged the numbers based on different “backgrounds.”

So, read your own conclusions into the study. Even so, it has no bearing on the program at issue in Florida, since those schools in which students were eligible were, by definition failing.

I found it very intersting.

I found it very intersting.

I think that’s one of the biggest problems with public schools – you can’t teach kids in a value-neutral environment, but because government must be nominally value-neutral, kids end up getting a mixed message. To make matters worse, attendance at these schools is mandatory except for families with the resources to escape from the public school system.

I don’t have any easy answers, but I can definitely recognize there’s a problem.

By the way, it’s not that I like “church schools” – although I did attend private Catholic schools in Tampa – but I like school choice, and I think private schools on the whole do a better job of teaching kids than public schools do.

I think that’s one of the biggest problems with public schools – you can’t teach kids in a value-neutral environment, but because government must be nominally value-neutral, kids end up getting a mixed message. To make matters worse, attendance at these schools is mandatory except for families with the resources to escape from the public school system.

I don’t have any easy answers, but I can definitely recognize there’s a problem.

By the way, it’s not that I like “church schools” – although I did attend private Catholic schools in Tampa – but I like school choice, and I think private schools on the whole do a better job of teaching kids than public schools do.

As far as Article I §3 goes, the word “aid” is what controls my view. If the purpose of the program is to assist the institution, it would violate that provision. But if the purpose is to aid the students, it would not violate the provision, even if there is an incidental benefit to “sectarian” institution. Your reading of Article I, §3 would render many programs unconstitutional that most of us agree should not be – such as government payments to sectarian hospitals, whose purpose is to benefit the patients, rather than the hospitals.

As far as Article I §3 goes, the word “aid” is what controls my view. If the purpose of the program is to assist the institution, it would violate that provision. But if the purpose is to aid the students, it would not violate the provision, even if there is an incidental benefit to “sectarian” institution. Your reading of Article I, §3 would render many programs unconstitutional that most of us agree should not be – such as government payments to sectarian hospitals, whose purpose is to benefit the patients, rather than the hospitals.

“As the record in this case – cited by the dissent – clearly shows, this program reduced the burden on those schools more than it reduced the resources available to those schools, because the amount of funds “diverted” was less than the cost of educating the students who had left. In other words, per-pupil resources went up.”

You also might wanna read article I section 3 of the constitution again.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A01S03
“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.”

Key in on “indirectly” and “sectarian institution”. Also, I thought the court had a better argument regarding article I section 3 rather than the uniform school clause in article IX section 1. I suppose that would be because the church state separation issue is more important to me. This is simply my world view; there’s no better way to damage religious institutions than by getting the government involved in their financing and operation.

“As the record in this case – cited by the dissent – clearly shows, this program reduced the burden on those schools more than it reduced the resources available to those schools, because the amount of funds “diverted” was less than the cost of educating the students who had left. In other words, per-pupil resources went up.”

You also might wanna read article I section 3 of the constitution again.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A01S03
“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.”

Key in on “indirectly” and “sectarian institution”. Also, I thought the court had a better argument regarding article I section 3 rather than the uniform school clause in article IX section 1. I suppose that would be because the church state separation issue is more important to me. This is simply my world view; there’s no better way to damage religious institutions than by getting the government involved in their financing and operation.