No they count on Republicans/Trump tax cuts for billionaires.Of course it is. Who do you think the cradle to grave benefits were intended to appeal to. Billionaires? Good grief
No they count on Republicans/Trump tax cuts for billionaires.Of course it is. Who do you think the cradle to grave benefits were intended to appeal to. Billionaires? Good grief
If I had the choice between a shit public school and an excellent Islamic school, I’ll send my kid to the Islamic school and make sure they do some extra bible study outside school time.![]()
![]()
Since conservatives are on board with religion in school, maybe Allah can be taught in all classrooms once muslims become the majority.
I could explain the typical arguments against this, sure. It’s not that I don’t know them - it’s just that I reject them.Deep thoughts. Could you even begin to explain the counterpoint to your deep thoughts?
Yes but they will survive otherwise hence not actually dependent. As crazed had a nice post earlier setting forth this cycle of dependency Dems create. I encourage you to read itNo they count on Republicans/Trump tax cuts for billionaires.
You don’t think people who provide goods and services are motivated to earn and keep the business of their customers by the prospect of those customers taking their business elsewhere?Nothing has ever been fixed by taking away funds
A couple other things I’d add to this.Nothing has ever been fixed by taking away funds and that is exactly what the voucher system has done to public schools.
If someone wants to send their kid to a private, then it should be out of their pocket.
And if the voucher system bs spreads, we will be seeing k-12 cost as much as college or be even a worse pile of underfunded crap
Prices drop when you introduce competition.Nothing has ever been fixed by taking away funds and that is exactly what the voucher system has done to public schools.
If someone wants to send their kid to a private, then it should be out of their pocket.
And if the voucher system bs spreads, we will be seeing k-12 cost as much as college or be even a worse pile of underfunded crap
I think it ticks that box for a decent sized group of voters, for sure. Similar to MAGA voters. But I really don't think it ends up ticking only that box. My wife, as an example, was never going to vote for Trump. But she was so apathetic to it all, that she was also not likely to vote for Biden...unless she got directions from me to "go vote for Biden"...which honestly, I don't think I was going to do myself this year, let alone tell her to.
That has now changed to her advocating FOR Harris, and actively trying to convince family members to...thinking about best running mate choices...etc...
To your point...its very possible this won't have long lasting staying power with my wife and our family? But the impact so far has been intriguing. I suspect its going to be more long lasting, and more impactful than you're giving it credit right now. Despite Harris being a VERY flawed candidate.
Indiana actually has several Islamic schools that use the Choice Scholarship program.
I certainly have no issue with that, so long as the schools follow the same curricular and accreditation guidelines that all other schools are required to follow. In fact, federal law requires that state ed choice programs be religiously neutral.
Here's a link to one such Islamic school in Indy: Tawheed Islamic Academy
So now 1976 is great for two reasons....First Prez/VP ballot since 1976 that won't have the name Bush, Clinton or Biden on it.
Clinton had been attacked by the right wing for decades before she ran. Clinton was older. Clinton is white. I think most everyone knows the VP has very little to do with actual policies.Well she isn't the 80 year old empty suit that Biden has been and she is a she, so I agree that has and will continue to in the short term generate some excitement. But as your pointed out she is a very flawed candidate, and when those flaws and her record become the focus of the race, the realization will set in that there is little difference in an old empty suit and a middle aged empty pant suit. I don't see her generating much more excitement among the base or independents than Hillary did in 2016. A vote for her is a vote for the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration.
Craze, Indiana has been one of the more progressive states when it comes to school choice. Choice including charter schools both with and without religious instruction.
Craze, judging success by state testing (which is a subject of controversy as to its effectiveness) what grade would you give the state of Indiana for its effort in providing an alternative to the old fashioned practice of financing only public schools ?
I believe the opposite. Just like Trump's followers were energized by him being found guilty (seriously Pubs?) Biden dropping out has energized Dems heading into the Convention...Good initial post and good response. I agree that she is generating excitement at the moment but do think it will fade soon.
It will be interesting to see who she picks for VP. Could generate an additional bump. I also wonder if Beshear, Kelly, and Shapiro are all willing to accept an offer from her to seve as VP.
"A vote for her is a vote for the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration."Well she isn't the 80 year old empty suit that Biden has been and she is a she, so I agree that has and will continue to in the short term generate some excitement. But as your pointed out she is a very flawed candidate, and when those flaws and her record become the focus of the race, the realization will set in that there is little difference in an old empty suit and a middle aged empty pant suit. I don't see her generating much more excitement among the base or independents than Hillary did in 2016. A vote for her is a vote for the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration.
I think that is an interesting position. The big rub in this in private schools taking public funds but being able to reject students in a way that public schools are not allowed. The results of course being that private schools tend to cherry pick the students who are easier (and less expensive) to educate. How would you address this issue? Require private schools to take any child who applies to the school? Allow public schools to have the same ability to reject students that private schools have. Provide more funding to public schools to offset the difference? I think it's a thing to consider as we look how to shape choice in education.That’s a good question and, honestly, I don’t think I’m well qualified to answer it. I’d say the people best qualified to grade it are those who utilized it, especially those who moved kids from traditional public schools to either charter schools or private schools via vouchers.
But I’d also say that parents whose kids have remained in traditional schools are in a good position to rate our success. I realize critics of school choice think that advocates are seeking to kill public education. But it’s certainly not true for me. My sincere hope is that they, too, are improved by it. Because I believe strongly that competition is ultimately good for everybody.
I do know that, here in Evansville, we’re the proud home to the #2 high school in the country - which is a charter school. But, as great as it is, it’s certainly not for everybody.
I know that various organizations put out data which claims to deem school choice a massive success or a massive failure. But I don’t really pay much attention to those - as most of the ones I’ve seen are from interest groups with skin in the game.
I’m content to let people make up their own minds. That usually doesn’t steer us wrong.
Well said. I think you’re spot on.Well she isn't the 80 year old empty suit that Biden has been and she is a she, so I agree that has and will continue to in the short term generate some excitement. But as your pointed out she is a very flawed candidate, and when those flaws and her record become the focus of the race, the realization will set in that there is little difference in an old empty suit and a middle aged empty pant suit. I don't see her generating much more excitement among the base or independents than Hillary did in 2016. A vote for her is a vote for the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration.
I think that is an interesting position. The big rub in this in private schools taking public funds but being able to reject students in a way that public schools are not allowed. The results of course being that private schools tend to cherry pick the students who are easier (and less expensive) to educate. How would you address this issue? Require private schools to take any child who applies to the school? Allow public schools to have the same ability to reject students that private schools have. Provide more funding to public schools to offset the difference? I think it's a thing to consider as we look how to shape choice in education.
I haven't lived in Indiana during that time, so I can't speak to what's happened there, but I believe it's a pretty commonly discussed subject in academic circles. I'll look for some writing on it to share here, but for example it's much more expensive to educate a student on an IEP to basic state requirements than an honors student. And I believe the term some voucher opponents use to complain about private school and charter school advantages in direct comparisons is cream skimming or something like that.How much has that been an issue in the 12 years we’ve had it?
I honestly can’t say - except that I know that the parochial school my kids attended has never turned away a student for any reason other than disciplinary. I asked the (former) president about that last fall when I saw him.
I can’t say that I’ve heard a lot of complaints about people being unable to find a school that would admit their kids. But I’m sure that some schools do fill up.
Signature School, the charter school I referenced, is highly competitive. I don’t know for sure, but I think I remember hearing the admission rate is something like 10%. But it’s intended for academic superstars. Those kids literally have to read Greek classics literature, as an example.
Ohhh my. Was there an influence here?I'm not sure this required a new post. But it is interesting enough, to me, that I thought I'd get a discussion going on it.
For many years, politics in my household has been very, very much a back burner topic. My wife and I are both independent voters, and we rarely ever talk politics in any sort of depth. Trump has been a little bit of a lightning rod, at times. My wife has a pretty open dislike for him, which dated back well before he ran for President in 16. But even at that, I wouldn't say she has ever been someone that actively thinks about, studies, politics or candidates in general. She'll ask me..."Is there anyone I need to vote for tomorrow"...the day before an election. That sort of thing. Which I think is probably VERY normal.
Biden's Presidency, and his own decline, in our household, and especially with my wife, has acted like a "Political sedative". Basically, we just didn't really care any more. These are our two choices? Really? If that's where we're at...I've got a lot more important things going on to worry about...wake me when its over...that was the mood in our house.
Then Biden dropped out. My wife sent me a text with a link to the news (that's actually how I first heard about it). That's literally the first political related link shes ever sent me. Since then, links and little convos have been happening between dozens of people in our little "village". And I've never seen my wife so excited, and engaged in politics. To the point where she was asking me who I thought would be Harris' best choice to win in the swing midwest states?!?! When I said she needs to get the nomination first...my wife was pretty indignant at the thought of her not being the nominee...and she's now fairly well versed in the process through the convention. I know my wife well enough to know that Harris lure is mainly a couple things 1)she's not Trump 2)how she looks and sounds when she talks. Like Trump for many MAGA voters, the specific words and content can be secondary. Its how she feels when she sees and hears Harris. 3)she's a vibrant, younger woman (relative to Trump/Biden). When I pushed her about some of the things that she has done in her past, some of the policy issues...and reminded her that her favorite POTUS was GWBush...because of "how good a man he is." She gave me "the look", and just said, she's running against Trump. And then went on to say..."I can't imagine all the crap she faced trying to do the things she's done."
So, my wife is currently all in on a Harris campaign. Me? I'm not nearly as sold. Some of her policy history, I don't jive with. I really don't jive with the current far left decisions, rhetoric, direction, etc... And Harris, as much as any other viable option right now for the Dems, seems to be more aligned with further left policies, words, and actions than most others.
But man...Its hard to downplay the impact my wifes energy is having on me. And though I'm not really "on board" with Harris, I am about as engaged or excited to see how the nomination process unfolds as I have for any political process in my lifetime. For me, that's how bad the choice of Trump or Biden was going to be. And I'm wondering if this 24' election might have some similarities to 16', but in reverse. Meaning, I could see polling data showing Trump with a comfortable lead over Harris the next few months. But election night...a tidal wave of women voters, minority voters, etc... in all the key swing areas, and Harris dramatically outperforming polling data.
He didn't mention one policy point, but being anti-Trump. to you, means she's "full dem". That's more about you than her.Your wife doesn’t sound politically independent. She sounds full Dem.
That's fine, but how it started what a form of segregation. Well off to wealthy families, with political allies, living in urban school districts figured out how to divert their money from public schools to subsidize their private education costs. I was in real estate when "school choice" was being lobbied for by the NAR (National Association of Realtors). They wanted it because it made it easier to transact real estate, especially for homes that would produce very large commissions.Well, as a parent, you get to choose the option that you think is best for your kids and other parents are afforded the same choice for their kids.
I don’t see why public education dollars should be restricted to particular institutions. We’ve done this in higher ed for decades - and it’s been a positive thing that people can use Pell Grants, GI Bill, etc. just as much at Notre Dame as at IU or Purdue.
Anyway, this is the system we have here now. And it’s growing fast around the country.
It appears to be common sense.Ohhh my. Was there an influence here?
What I’ve always found funny about that criticism, from my own experience, is that our parochial school (my wife and I both went there too) has long been very predominantly white.That's fine, but how it started what a form of segregation. Well off to wealthy families, with political allies, living in urban school districts figured out how to divert their money from public schools to subsidize their private education costs. I was in real estate when "school choice" was being lobbied for by the NAR (National Association of Realtors). They wanted it because it made it easier to transact real estate, especially for homes that would produce very large commissions.
That's how it went in Indiana. I sat in those meetings and seminars on the topic.
**** yes dude. **** yes. I think the vision of Catholic school most on this board have isn’t a Catholic school that exists in reality or that I grew up with my siblings attending (or myself).What I’ve always found funny about that criticism, from my own experience, is that our parochial school (my wife and I both went there too) has long been very predominantly white.
I can’t cite any numbers. But the advent of school choice has made it noticeably more racially diverse. I personally heard a parent complain about the school admitting voucher students. I reminded them that choice works both ways….there’s no law making them keep their own kids there.
(I should note that this parent didn’t specifically say anything about race. They were complaining about kids who were rougher and didn’t have the same kind of discipline at home that most of our school families did…but I took it as racially sotto voce)
Anyway, maybe school choice has turned other schools and systems less racially diverse. but that certainly hasn’t been our experience.
I'm not sure this required a new post. But it is interesting enough, to me, that I thought I'd get a discussion going on it.
For many years, politics in my household has been very, very much a back burner topic. My wife and I are both independent voters, and we rarely ever talk politics in any sort of depth. Trump has been a little bit of a lightning rod, at times. My wife has a pretty open dislike for him, which dated back well before he ran for President in 16. But even at that, I wouldn't say she has ever been someone that actively thinks about, studies, politics or candidates in general. She'll ask me..."Is there anyone I need to vote for tomorrow"...the day before an election. That sort of thing. Which I think is probably VERY normal.
Biden's Presidency, and his own decline, in our household, and especially with my wife, has acted like a "Political sedative". Basically, we just didn't really care any more. These are our two choices? Really? If that's where we're at...I've got a lot more important things going on to worry about...wake me when its over...that was the mood in our house.
Then Biden dropped out. My wife sent me a text with a link to the news (that's actually how I first heard about it). That's literally the first political related link shes ever sent me. Since then, links and little convos have been happening between dozens of people in our little "village". And I've never seen my wife so excited, and engaged in politics. To the point where she was asking me who I thought would be Harris' best choice to win in the swing midwest states?!?! When I said she needs to get the nomination first...my wife was pretty indignant at the thought of her not being the nominee...and she's now fairly well versed in the process through the convention. I know my wife well enough to know that Harris lure is mainly a couple things 1)she's not Trump 2)how she looks and sounds when she talks. Like Trump for many MAGA voters, the specific words and content can be secondary. Its how she feels when she sees and hears Harris. 3)she's a vibrant, younger woman (relative to Trump/Biden). When I pushed her about some of the things that she has done in her past, some of the policy issues...and reminded her that her favorite POTUS was GWBush...because of "how good a man he is." She gave me "the look", and just said, she's running against Trump. And then went on to say..."I can't imagine all the crap she faced trying to do the things she's done."
So, my wife is currently all in on a Harris campaign. Me? I'm not nearly as sold. Some of her policy history, I don't jive with. I really don't jive with the current far left decisions, rhetoric, direction, etc... And Harris, as much as any other viable option right now for the Dems, seems to be more aligned with further left policies, words, and actions than most others.
But man...Its hard to downplay the impact my wifes energy is having on me. And though I'm not really "on board" with Harris, I am about as engaged or excited to see how the nomination process unfolds as I have for any political process in my lifetime. For me, that's how bad the choice of Trump or Biden was going to be. And I'm wondering if this 24' election might have some similarities to 16', but in reverse. Meaning, I could see polling data showing Trump with a comfortable lead over Harris the next few months. But election night...a tidal wave of women voters, minority voters, etc... in all the key swing areas, and Harris dramatically outperforming polling data.
I’m surprised a woman that claims to be an independent is excited by a more liberal candidate than Biden has acted out to be. Student loan forgiveness, reparations and all of that is going to be back in play under Harris.
On top of that, I’d be curious to hear her take on a 20-something “dating” with a 60 year old, as if that’s normal. Oh and he just happened to be a man in a position of significant influence and power. She also had repeatedly played the minority card.
Lastly, what does your wife think about her job as VP, with the border crisis, etc? Does she give Harris a pass for all of the foreign policy failures, domestic blunders, and economic issues (not just inflation, but Tariffs)?
If so, it seems like she only cares about voting for anatomy.
If so, it seems like she only cares about voting for anatomy.
We've talked, a little, on some of these things. As I've posted in a few other threads, she'll pick from both policy and feelings and perceptions. Her favorite political figure in her lifetime, to this day, is GWB. I've playfully listed some of his bigger failures, and she's pretty dug in..."he's a good man"... its simple, its true, and these days...probably just as important a virtue as policy points.I’m surprised a woman that claims to be an independent is excited by a more liberal candidate than Biden has acted out to be. Student loan forgiveness, reparations and all of that is going to be back in play under Harris.
On top of that, I’d be curious to hear her take on a 20-something “dating” with a 60 year old, as if that’s normal. Oh and he just happened to be a man in a position of significant influence and power. She also had repeatedly played the minority card.
Lastly, what does your wife think about her job as VP, with the border crisis, etc? Does she give Harris a pass for all of the foreign policy failures, domestic blunders, and economic issues (not just inflation, but Tariffs)?
If so, it seems like she only cares about voting for anatomy.
So the student loan forgiveness, reparations...probably wouldn't move the needle for her much. Though I will say she hated the loan forgiveness, and some of the other more progressive tax/budget policies.
The 20 something dating a 60 year old...Got news for you, though I suspect you already know this...that isn't going to play, really at all, for many women voters...when the alternative is Trump. And I don't think I should need to go down his list of transgressions on those sorts of things. And if my wife is any sort of barometer...its not going to be wise for any GOP person to bring it up, if they're trying to convince a woman to vote for Trump over Harris...or better yet, try to use that to get them to vote GOP down ballot. There are many other things that could be focused on that will land, and not completely erase the other stuff.
The VP stuff is where she's more seriously questioning. A lot of it is frustration that she basically disappeared. But those other things, and her role in them, are definitely things she's thinking about and processing.
Her favorite political figure in her lifetime, to this day, is GWB.
Never said more money was a guarantee of anything because money isn't always spent wisely. Less money is only going to increase issuesA couple other things I’d add to this.
If money is the secret to quality education, then it’s really hard to explain why some of the highest funded school systems in the country produce some of the absolute worst outcomes.
Second, the single biggest reason college has become stupidly expensive is that there’s no fixed relationship between the cost to obtain a particular degree and the value of having it.
If we establish that relationship, it will go a long way towards addressing this imbalance.
This all boils to down to one thing for me: Education is mandatory for all children in Indiana from 7-18, unless they graduate before they turn 18. Public schools must take all students in their district, which includes all children with developmental and physical issues. That means paying for ADA compliance, specially trained teacher's aides, and wheelchair ramps just to name a few. A private school in Indiana gets public $$ and then they can turn away any student for any reason, and they do not have to make accommodations for children that require them in order to attend their school. Now those kids with issues have to go to a public school that has less $$ to deal with their issues because vouchers are funneling those $$ to charter schools that do not have to accommodate these kids. Taking away $$ from public schools to give to private schools only makes sense if they have to accommodate all the kids that want to attend. As long as they get to turn kids away then they shouldn't get a dime of our tax $$ meant for educating kids.How much has that been an issue in the 12 years we’ve had it?
I honestly can’t say - except that I know that the parochial school my kids attended has never turned away a student for any reason other than disciplinary. I asked the (former) president about that last fall when I saw him.
I can’t say that I’ve heard a lot of complaints about people being unable to find a school that would admit their kids. But I’m sure that some schools do fill up.
Signature School, the charter school I referenced, is highly competitive. I don’t know for sure, but I think I remember hearing the admission rate is something like 10%. But it’s intended for academic superstars. Those kids literally have to read Greek classics literature, as an example.
That was an unintended consequence. So families starting pushing more out into suburbs, and now the suburbs are becoming more diverse, not just demographically but also politically.What I’ve always found funny about that criticism, from my own experience, is that our parochial school (my wife and I both went there too) has long been very predominantly white.
I can’t cite any numbers. But the advent of school choice has made it noticeably more racially diverse. I personally heard a parent complain about the school admitting voucher students. I reminded them that choice works both ways….there’s no law making them keep their own kids there.
That's fair.(I should note that this parent didn’t specifically say anything about race. They were complaining about kids who were rougher and didn’t have the same kind of discipline at home that most of our school families did…but I took it as racially sotto voce)
School choice has evolved in terms of motivations by those who fight to keep it. Charter schools came into the cities to fill a void as community schools were robbed of their money. Now charter schools are the way for conservative groups to benefit in money rich suburbs. At first I thought it was just about that, but even that has evolved into ways to control what students are being taught.Anyway, maybe school choice has turned other schools and systems less racially diverse. but that certainly hasn’t been our experience.
That was an unintended consequence. So families starting pushing more out into suburbs, and now the suburbs are becoming more diverse, not just demographically but also politically.
So now we have the Heritage Foundation funding Moms For Liberty to try and do their dirty work, trying to create discontent in suburban public schools. They need a lot of that money to start their charter schools, and at least in central Indiana they are struggling mightily.
That's fair.
School choice has evolved in terms of motivations by those who fight to keep it. Charter schools came into the cities to fill a void as community schools were robbed of their money. Now charter schools are the way for conservative groups to benefit in money rich suburbs. At first I thought it was just about that, but even that has evolved into ways to control what students are being taught.
To the degree it actually is an issue, I would certainly agree. But I’m just not convinced it actually is a major issue. It’s usually presented as an argument made in the abstract. It's been presented here as an argument in the abstract in this thread, a couple times.I haven't lived in Indiana during that time, so I can't speak to what's happened there, but I believe it's a pretty commonly discussed subject in academic circles. I'll look for some writing on it to share here, but for example it's much more expensive to educate a student on an IEP to basic state requirements than an honors student. And I believe the term some voucher opponents use to complain about private school and charter school advantages in direct comparisons is cream skimming or something like that.
I'm not opposed to school choice as long as we figure out how to address these sorts of issues.
The idea of public school was for the school to represent the community.But the key point is that parents get to make that choice. That’s the thing opponents can’t run away from - so generally don’t even acknowledge.
I haven't read what IU_Hickory said, but the notion of public schools teaching religion is ludicrous and a violation of the 1st Amendment. There are classes which do teach the Bible as a literature class, but that's not the same.But it’s an incredibly critical factor. Read the court’s opinion in Zelman. It was testing an Ohio program against the Establishment Clause. And the decision hinged on the fact that the parents, not the state, were directing these funds.
I’d extend this same point to IU_Hickory when he says “that should include not teaching religion.” The fact that parents direct these funds, rather than the state, renders is legally similar to a Social Security recipient putting some of her monthly benefit in the collection plate at church.
I don't care what someone uses his/her SS benefits for.What exactly do we think churches use those funds to do, other than promote religious doctrine? But would it be reasonable for SSA to tell recipients that they aren’t allowed to give any of their benefit to a religious entity?
Bureaucrats don't determine if a child is receiving the necessary education. Teachers do, along with their administrators.I really don’t think we should fear allowing parents to fill this role. It doesn’t violate the 1A, that’s long been established.
And parents are virtually always going to be better situated to determine if their children are receiving a quality education than some bureaucrat is. Why do you think so many people who can afford to spring extra for private education to begin with?
This is not a new paradigm. We've had it in Indiana since the late 90's, or at least that's when it legislated. It's been the downfall of urban school systems, and those who are work hard to defund public schools are also the loudest voices when it comes crime in those same areas.Anyway, this is our new paradigm. Certainly in this state - and it’s been expanding to many others. Even Gov. Shapiro in PA has expressed interest in it - which is not surprising to me.
The idea of public school was for the school to represent the community.
White flight led to families leaving urban school systems. You view it as choice. Some of us view it as defunding schools, pushing kids to be disenfranchised. School choice is GREAT for those who can make it work. A public school gets a child to school by bus. That typically isn't available for children at private schools, charter schools or when they're forced to attend schools which aren't in their neighborhood.
Try being an IPS family on the South, West or East sides of Indianapolis figuring out where your child is going to attend school and how they're going to get there.
Opponents don't run away from the choice notion. They confront it square in the face and know, from day one, it was never really about choice.
I haven't read what IU_Hickory said, but the notion of public schools teaching religion is ludicrous and a violation of the 1st Amendment. There are classes which do teach the Bible as a literature class, but that's not the same.
Just because you frame it as your money doesn't you can violate laws with it. It would be like me arguing to a cop, my car is able to reach 130 MPH, so I should be allowed to drive that fast.
I don't care what someone uses his/her SS benefits for.
Bureaucrats don't determine if a child is receiving the necessary education. Teachers do, along with their administrators.
I don't care that families send kids to private schools. They should have to pay for without defunding public schools. Otherwise it puts kids in harm's way who aren't as able through no fault of their own.
I had a kid live with me for 14 months, as a result his entire senior year. For his junior year, his school coach and I would take turns getting him to school. No bus was available to him, and his parents were unable to take him. His decision to move in with me was more of a safety issue, but it make it a hell of a lot easier to get him to school. (He didn't change schools.)
This is not a new paradigm. We've had it in Indiana since the late 90's, or at least that's when it legislated. It's been the downfall of urban school systems, and those who are work hard to defund public schools are also the loudest voices when it comes crime in those same areas.
That wasn't my argument, which is also to say I didn't know about Zelman.But I’d just want to say that this is not a 1st amendment violation. I linked the most notable court decision regarding the Establishment Clause test. It was Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - from 2002. There have been several others. But that was the landmark one.
Again, the key idea is that individuals are directing the funds, not the state. This is what keeps it faithful to the EC. You may not agree with that - and you wouldn’t be alone. But that’s one of those things where only 9 opinions actually matter.
Oh, no. Religion can’t be taught in public schools. I certainly didn’t mean to say that.That wasn't my argument, which is also to say I didn't know about Zelman.
I know my voice doesn't specifically matter when it comes to how vouchers are used - public, private, charter. Indiana has been open enrollment since the early 00's, even though many schools still require residency. I deal with that on a yearly basis just in covering HS basketball as I do in this state, often times advising privately or correcting publicly, how it applies to kids transferring from one HS to another.
I thought you were implying because of 'school choice' parents could dictate to public schools the teaching of religion. I misunderstood your point entirely because I didn't specifically know about Zelman, but I know vouchers can be used in whichever school systems allow them.