[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.

[consteval]

A-religious endeavors are not inherently atheist. Public education is certainly not atheist.

Vouchers as a whole should be eliminated. Giving public funds to private schools is nothing short of evil. Using children as a pawn to move that money doesn't change anything.

Ultimately these schools exist to completely bypass any standards of education. That includes teaching religion, which is not allowed in public schools for good reason. This, on its own, isn't awful. But combined with stealing money from public schools it's a huge problem.

[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.