[crooked-v]

I'm badly split on Institute for Justice, the nonprofit backing this suit.

On the one hand, they aggressively advocate for obvious constitutional rights cases like this one and have put a lot of effort into fighting legally-accepted-yet-fundamentally-nonsensical practices like civil forfeiture.

On the other, they also aggressively support school vouchers, which are mostly a scheme to drain money from public schools into private ones that can use broad excuses to keep out students that would cost more or lower their grade averages.

[JumpCrisscross]

It’s almost like democracy involves coalition building and compromise, where absolute positions are anathema.

[lazyeye]

Yes the idea that the govt is the best at everything (let alone schooling...)

[ckemere]

I think that few (no?) people oppose vouchers on the theory that private schools provide an inferior education to public schools. They oppose them because most proposals would not (a) require private schools to accept the voucher as full tuition and fees and (b) require private schools to educate everyone regardless of disability, belief, etc.

As currently posed, the voucher is a subsidy to already wealthy people who can afford to supplement the voucher with extra $$ to pay for their children’s education.

[danaris]

> I think that few (no?) people oppose vouchers on the theory that private schools provide an inferior education to public schools.

Frankly, I don't actually buy that all private schools are necessarily superior to public schools.

You're probably just thinking of elite private schools, of the type that rich people in NYC want to send their kids to, but there are plenty of other kinds of private schools out there.

The degree to which they have to meet any standards at all vary by jurisdiction.

Some are explicitly religious, and will not be teaching accurate history or biology because of that.

Some are based on experimental (to put it kindly) pedagogical theories that are not well-grounded in research or evidence (but have some wealthy people willing to buy into them).

Just because it costs more money to go to does not remotely guarantee that it will provide a better education.

[pixl97]

Once you grow up around a bunch of home schooled kids that only learned a bit of the Bible you begin to realize that having a wide ranging education across a bunch of topics is important to create people that aren't total gibbering idiots.

[busterarm]

I've worked with a lot of engineers over the years who started off home schooled. Mostly they were from rural areas though.

Interestingly, I work with a lot of people who do have a stay-at-home partner and homeschool their kids in large cities.

[consteval]

There's a big risk in social development for those who are home schooled. Most developers I've met are severely lacking in social skills, so they're maybe not the best group to use as an example.

In my personal experience, I haven't met a single home school adult who was well-adjusted. I have met some who became well-adjusted after working a demanding enough job (I used to work in a kitchen). I don't think software engineering is nearly demanding enough for that kind of development.

[lazyeye]

Of course, and equally you can cherry-pick the products of public schools who are also gibbering idiots and don't have even basic levels of literacy.

[gs17]

I'm willing to accept that the 90% of what they do that's things I really really agree with comes with some things I don't like as much. They're willing to take on cases like https://ij.org/case/florida-cultivated-meat-ban/ too.

[Suppafly]

I'm not a fan of vouchers in general, especially if they allow public funds to go to religious institutions, but educational choice (as IJ terms it) is a tricky area. A lot of times these programs allow people to move between public schools or get additional funds for alternative programs that better suit their children's needs.

[monero-xmr]

Even the head of the Chicago Teachers Union sends her kid to Catholic school, because the quality of the system she runs is appalling https://abc7chicago.com/stacy-davis-gates-private-school-ctu...

Maybe giving money so more kids can attend Catholic schools is a good thing

[tptacek]

Do you live in Chicago? I do, and grew up here. My mom taught in CPS, and we were all sent to Catholic school. Not because the schools were better (in fact: my mom often remarked on how much lower the teacher quality was in the parochial schools, because the comp was substantially lower), but because we were Catholic, and if you don't go to Catholic K-8, you have to go to CCD. This is an extremely normal Chicago story, and not necessarily the indictment of the system you think it is.

Gates-Davis also lives on the far south side, which has structural school quality problems that aren't reasonable to pin on CTU.

I don't like CTU. I'm generally not a fan of teachers unions in major metros (most major metro teachers are in fact surprisingly well compensated). But I'm a little tired of this dunk; it's not a good one.

[danaris]

All that does is abandon the kids who don't get that money to a poor education.

No; the very very obvious "good thing" here would be to fix the Chicago public school system, whatever that entails. (And yes, I know that's guaranteed to be politically and logistically more difficult than just diverting more taxpayer money to private schools, but it's still the right thing to do.)

[crisdux]

Why shouldn't finds go to religious institutions? I lived in a western country that allows public funding for religious schools, which I attended while growing up. The schools are still fulfilling a public need of educating students. Is it because they are religious?

[riskable]

It's quite simple, really: The government shouldn't be giving money to religious institutions because that would be, "respecting an establishment of religion".

You could argue that the 1st Amendment only applies to laws written by Congress and not the whims of state governments but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does extend downwards like that.

Then again, the Supreme Court also ruled that if a state does decide to subsidize private education it can't discriminate based on religion VS non-religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue).

The bigger argument: By allowing a state to fund religious institutions (educational or not) you're basically granting the state great power over religious institutions (as well as taking non-sectarian money and giving it to sectarian causes). A governor or powerful congressman/regulator could demand all sorts of concessions from religious institutions or their funding could be withheld or reduced. In other words, it gives the government direct (and/or indirect) influence over the religion itself.

[s1artibartfast]

Seems to be stretching the separation of church and state.

As long as the schools meet certification and minimum curriculum, I dont see how it is different than the city buying concrete from a religious vendor.

[consteval]

It seems like an obvious example of separation of church and state. The state shouldn't be funding the indoctrination of people into a particular church.

[s1artibartfast]

the state isn't funding any particular church. It is giving a voucher that can be redeemed by any secular or religious school.

I think it would be a separation issue if vouchers 1) could only be used for one religion or 2) could only be used at secular schools.

The key is equal treatment, not enforcing atheism.

[abenga]

> I dont see how it is different than the city buying concrete from a religious vendor.

It is not expected that the religious vendor will try to teach religion to every person who uses the structure built by the concrete the government pays for in your example.

[pixl97]

Depends if the school is serious about educating students or being a weird ass cult. In the US we have issues with cults throughout our history.

[crisdux]

In communities near me, recent expansions of school vouchers has been a game changer. Public schools are struggling and private schools give students a much better education. Public schools were failing well before private school vouchers existed.

[linuxlizard]

Are the private schools forced to take any students? Or can they cherry pick just the best students? Do they reject anyone that needs an IEP? Public schools are legally obligated to provide an education to anyone, no matter how much trouble they cause. If these private schools take public coin, they should be required to follow the same laws.

[busterarm]

When an airplane loses compression they instruct you to put your own mask on before you assist with other peoples'.

School should be the same way. Education should not be lowest-common-denominator. My kids should not have less opportunity because other kids have greater challenges.

Operating that way is ethical and humane.

[eesmith]

Why should my tax dollars go to have your kids attend a non-public school, rather than the ones needing oxygen at a public one?

[busterarm]

It's the same tax dollars. It's paying for kids to go to school. That's a public good. You want society to do this.

Why should your tax dollars only go to schools controlled by the state? Do you care that public schools in the US typically have worse outcomes and have to spend more per child to get there?

[frumper]

OP seems to be saying if the non state controlled schools follow the rules as state schools then that is fine, but they currently don't. Not many private schools provide special education services for one.

[eesmith]

> Do you care that public schools in the US typically have worse outcomes and have to spend more per child to get there?

That statement is not true.

There are many problems with the non-public system. I'll use the term "voucher" school to mean a school which is not controlled by a school board whose members are voted for by the residents of the school catchment area. (This isn't quite correct, as there are public schools run by a school board controlled by the state.) A "voucher" school also receives either money directly from taxes, or indirectly through, for example, a tax credit to the school or to the parents of the student.

1) the finances are not public, and include cases where the non-profit voucher school pays rent to a for-profit company, and pays license fees to a for-profit company, where are three are owned by the same person. The non-profit is not incentivized to get the best deal, which means my tax dollars go to enrich the owner rather than the students.

2) voucher schools generally spend money on advertisements, which target the student population they prefer rather then the entire population. The money for advertisements reduces the amount of money available to schools. Good advertising beats good teaching, because the advertising comes first. A local voucher school advertised a few years ago that all students would get their own tablet for learning. Now this school is in financial troubles, and doesn't have enough staff.

3) voucher schools can select their student population through many means, for example, require parental involvement every week, which selects for richer families which have that amount of free time.

4) voucher schools have more freedom to expel students. If a student is unruly, rather than using expensive counseling to help resolve the issues, a voucher school can expel the student. If a student has subpar grades, the school can make it known that the student is unwelcome for the next year, and can use behavior problems as subtext to expel that student.

Thus, you have some voucher schools which appear to do well, but they are not held anywhere near the same standards and obligations as actual public schools.

I don't want my tax dollars going to voucher schools. If you want to sent your kid to a private school, go ahead. Just don't expect me to subsidize you.

[busterarm]

So you're saying you don't want parents to have the choice to send their children to better performing schools and provide better opportunities for their children?

Or are you saying that should only be a privilege of the rich?

Having gone to both public and private schools, while I had horrible experiences with both, at least there was teaching going on in my private schools.

My public school experience was horrific, even in NYC's so-called "gifted" schools. My brother's kid only went to NYC public schools and her experiences were so much worse. My public school tried to have me put on psychiatric medication without a diagnosis from a qualified professional and my niece's public school spent two years trying to gaslight her that she was not gay but trans (as well as a whole bunch targeted harassment from her teachers for being vocally politically conservative).

Neither of those things have anything to do with what the schools' mandate should be: education.

[plorkyeran]

It only being a privilege of the rich is precisely the problem with school vouchers. Vouchers don't let poor students go to good private schools; they let good private schools charge more because the state is subsidizing part of the tuition.

[busterarm]

I grew up certified poor (rent control, foodstamps, hand me down clothes, donation program christmas gifts, the works) and was able to attend elite private schools because of programs like this.

Grew up with plenty of other poor kids going to those schools too.

[danaris]

> Or are you saying that should only be a privilege of the rich?

No: I don't think anyone should have the option of private schools.

Yes, I think public education should be mandatory in the US. That way, when there are problems with the public school system in a given area, rather than just pulling their own children—and money—out, the rich people would be personally incentivized to find ways to make it better for everyone.

[busterarm]

One of the things that I am most thankful for as am American is that we're not living in an authoritarian hellhole where the state-offered solution is the only solution.

As a kid my option was to be forcibly medicated by some random tyrant bureaucrat or not be allowed to attend school. I had no disorder or diagnosis that required this. Luckily I was able to escape to private school.

More importantly, children are not one-size-fits-all in terms of learning requirements or ability, but public schools only provide one-size-fits-all opportunity.

[consteval]

> public schools only provide one-size-fits-all opportunity

This isn't true - there's many specialty public schools. Schools for the deaf, schools for the blind, schools for those with severe learning disabilities.

The core issue with private education is it gives richer people an incentive to screw over public schools, which is exactly what we're seeing. They're greedy, it's not just enough for them to have private schools. They also have to siphon money from public schools, which hurts poorer Americans.

In theory, private schools could be fine. But when we give millions of public dollars to private schools, we have a huge problem.

[Ferret7446]

They'll just do what they did in Baton Rouge. The people who care don't want to fight against the people actively making the situation worse.

[s1artibartfast]

Im a huge fan of constitutional rights and school vouchers, so I should look into them.

If public schools are less desirable, we should celebrate that the money is going elsewhere.