Regarding the June 4 front page article, “Religious Schools to Receive Billions in Public Funding”:
An alternative headline for a story about tax dollars going to religious schools might have been “Vouchers Help Spend Billions of Tax Dollars to Expand School Segregation.” Even before what the Washington Post called “the modern voucher movement,” vouchers really took off after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision as a way to help white families leave public schools. And even today, school vouchers continue to function as an effective tool for expanding segregation and weakening democracy.
Today's voucher advocates often overlook their original purpose, but the programs' history of racial segregation is clear when we examine their impact on public schools and students: Voucher programs can lead to racial homogenization of schools, fail to produce promised academic benefits, and lack accountability measures and safeguards to ensure equitable support for all students.
Vouchers also create financial barriers for school districts and contradict common-sense efforts to adequately fund public schools. Contrary to the notion that voucher funds are parents’ discretionary money, vouchers are funded by all taxpayers. They further drain already limited public school funding. And vouchers can end up subsidizing tuition for wealthy families who want to send their children to private, often religious, schools (some of whom never intended to send their children to public school in the first place). This funding shortfall hits low-income students and those in rural counties the hardest. With public schools facing post-pandemic financial challenges and teacher shortages, vouchers do more harm than good.
Today, the vast majority of students in the United States attend public schools. Public schools are places where young people of all backgrounds and identities learn and problem-solve together. If we want to prioritize the well-being and education of all students and the possibility of a just, multiracial democracy, we must mobilize to end vouchers in order to promote, protect, and strengthen our public schools.
The author is president of Race Forward and a board member of the Philanthropic Initiative on Racial Equity.
A recent article looked at the growing number of families using vouchers to pay for private school tuition and cited some Supreme Court cases on the issue. But the article omitted relevant case history that might help interpret this trend in a less dramatic way.
The rise of school choice programs is not primarily due to decisions by a “conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court.” [that] It redefined the role of religion in education and public life.”
The Supreme Court has held at least five times that participation by students at religious schools in government-funded programs that are open and available to all students does not violate the First Amendment's separation of church and state.
This series began with Mueller v. Allen in 1983, which allowed private school parents to deduct tuition and other education expenses from their taxes. Three of these decisions do not involve a single current Supreme Court justice. Only Justice Clarence Thomas remains from the Supreme Court, which in 2002 decided Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, upholding Cleveland's voucher program that could be used to pay for tuition at religious or secular public schools. The most recent church-state clause challenge to educational choice, in 2011, involved only three justices from the current conservative majority.
Justices with very different reputations have taken similar positions on these issues. In 1985, I presided over and won the second of the five cases, Whitters v. Washington State Department of Services for the Blind. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the majority opinion for all nine justices.
My client was a blind Bible school student who was preparing to become a minister. He argued that Washington state violated “separation of church and state” by allowing students to participate in a state program that provides educational benefits to the blind if they intended to use that assistance to pursue a religious vocation. Judge Marshall emphatically rejected this argument, pointing to the long history of GI Bills that has always included religious students and religious schools in its generous educational assistance programs for veterans.
Recent cases regarding educational choice have addressed clear legal issues arising from the Equal Protection Clause and the Religious Freedom Clause. These cases argue that if the government decides to implement an educational choice program for some students, it is unconstitutional to discriminate by excluding students because of their religion.
Michael Farris, Purcellville, Virginia
The author is an attorney and founder of Patrick Henry University and the Homeschool Legal Advocacy Association.
I am a retired public school teacher, and in light of the recent spate of school shootings, I believe parents and children should be free to choose their school. Sadly, there are a fair number of kids who hate, and in some cases hate, public school, but are forced to go there. Schools should not be like prisons. And while rational, secular learning is great, there is more to life than that.
I grew up in a secular humanist household, but when I was old enough to go to public school, we recited the Lord's Prayer every day in class. I thought of it as a poem. The idea of forgiving your enemies and being forgiven was very appealing to me, and seemed like a good approach to a good society where tolerance and forgiveness rule.
I have since studied the world's religions, and I have found that the world's faiths have a lot in common.
There is nothing wrong with accepting common Christian values such as loving your neighbor as yourself, loving and doing good to even your enemies, not murdering, stealing, lying, cheating or committing adultery, and helping the poor.
I don't think increased exposure to religious values will destroy America. I was in the civil rights movement and most of the music we sang was religious.
I found a recent Washington Post article about religious schools where students' tuition is paid for with publicly funded vouchers to be quite antagonistic.
Many of the schools could best be described as affiliated with a particular religious denomination. I attended such schools from grades 1 through 12 and experienced primarily rigorous academic discipline. The religious aspects of our classes were indirect, provided under the auspices of the church rather than by teachers of other subjects. Religious education for pastors, rabbis, and other clergy is provided elsewhere – in higher monasteries, seminaries, temples, and novitiates.
A more important question than whether these schools have religious affiliations is what students learn at these private schools. Are these schools producing well-educated graduates who are ready to contribute to society? Are these schools providing an adequate return on taxpayer investment?
George Hayne, Dumfries, Virginia
Keeping children safe while cycling
I am 12 years old and I ride my bike a lot. I have noticed that drivers in my area are very annoyed with cyclists. When I read Michael J. Coren's June 4 Climate Coach column, “You'll never have to wait in line for a school car again. Here's how to do it,” I agreed with a lot of what he wrote.
In the 1960s, it was safer because not many people drove their children to school. But now many people drive cars, so the traffic is heavy and cars can be very frustrating, not only at school. Drivers honk at children everywhere, frightening them. There are always a lot of cars around my school in the morning and afternoon, with people taking their children to and from school.
As Coren says, cycling to school in a “caravan” would be safer and more enjoyable. As Coren writes, many people drive to school these days, so if you cycle to school, you may not have anyone to ride with. Riding alone puts you at a higher risk of being hit than if you were in a group. I don't think drivers are more likely to honk at a large group of people. The only downside is that people who don't know how to cycle or don't own bikes might get grief in a bike caravan.
I would say to drivers everywhere, don't honk your horn, even if your kids can't go fast enough or you have to get somewhere in a hurry. Honking scares people and makes kids not want to ride their bikes. I don't cycle as much as I used to because drivers are always honking in frustration. And I think people should feel safe when they're cycling alone, even if they can't ride in a camper.
Summer is approaching and school is out. More people will be riding bikes. If drivers were more patient and didn't honk, children would feel safer and be able to enjoy the freedom of riding without worry.
Foster Marchand, Alexandria
