"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:hga8s1hv14m3id7rpr5s6b4mkfejkgg5mb@4ax.com...
But it is reasonable that a religious school can be regulated on its
academic content.

If a State wanted to assure that none of its school age children were dumb
as rocks, it could in theory regulate all educational material from an
academic perspective.

For example, a private school can not teach that 1 + 1 = 3.

Having said that, the free market dictates that people will not pay for
services of a private school if it fails to adequately teach the children.

If a private school is going to insist that 1 + 1 = 3, they won't be
teaching very many kids for very long because nobody is going to pay for
such an education.

We can regulate education aside from defining the religious content of the
education.

But why would
it do that, the academic standards of private schools is generally higher
than that of public schools already.

You keep saying it, but you can provide no evidence, because in fact
the standards are NOT higher.

The children that get private school education generally do better as they
progress through the higher educational levels. This is a well known fact.

It isn't always true, but the exceptions generally reflect more on the
student than on the school they attended. To wit, it is rare that an entire
class of a private school will do poorly in post secondary schooling. There
is the random student that may not do very well, but that is a reflection on
the student because the rest of his classmates seem to do fine.

You keep denying it, but provide no evidence that the standards are not
higher.

The fact is that private schools conform to market forces,

and
people that wish to send a kid to a private school will demand more of the
education provider than they demand of the public school system.

If the private schools do no better than the public schools, what's the point of
putting a kid in a private school?

Surely a shitty education that is free is
much better than a shitty education that somebody has to pay for
out-of-pocket.

If the state constitution were amended, all sorts of weirdness might
result. But that is a big "if".

Yes, but the state constitution can be amended to allow vouchers for
education. I am not suggesting it is a good idea, I only suggest that it
could happen.

No mention of quality. The point is that they aren't the SAME.

Of course they aren't the same. The argument can be made -- very easily, I
might add -- that public schools aren't even the same, and therefore the
public schools system violates the state constitution.

That argument could be made against charter schools, which is why they
might be constitutionally questionable. But the regular public
schools operate under the same standards and regulations everywhere in
the state.

They might operate under the same standards and regulations, but the results
vary widely. Since the results vary widely, then an argument could be made
that the education is not equal,

The state itself apparently feels that the results of the
educational process are not equal,

and it is offering vouchers in an effort
to provide a better education to those that are not getting all they
bargained for from the state.

The diversion of funds from public to private schools actually INCREASES
the
Per Child funds available to public schools.

Not relevant, and likely not true as well since it ignores the way
school funding actually works.

Bob, it's simple math. If the state funds $6000 per year per kid, and there
are 300 kids in the school, then the funding is $1,800,000. If the school
then turns around and jetisons 100 kids with a voucher for $5000, then the
remaining 200 kids will share $1,300,000,

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:hga8s1hv14m3id7rpr5s6b4mkfejkgg5mb@4ax.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:

By the wall of separation, religious schools cannot be so regulated.

The State can regulate the academic standards if it wants to.

Nope. There are enormous limits on state powers to do so:

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/intro.html
is a good summary. You should read it, but since you won't, here are
some highlights.


<Under the United States Constitution, parents have a fundamental right
< to direct the education of their children.
...
<It is also well-established that states have the power to regulate
< private schools. Based on the "high responsibility for education of
< its citizens, [a State] may impose reasonable regulations for the
< control and duration of basic education." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
< U.S. 205, 213 (1972). See also Board of Ed. of Cent. Sch. Dist. No.1
< v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 246-247 (1968). The state's interest in an
< informed and self-sufficient citizenry capable of participating in a
< democratic society is generally cited to support the regulation of
< private schools. Yoder at 221; Kentucky State Board v. Rudasill, 589
< S.W.2d 877, 883 (1979).
<
<The right to regulate is not without limitations, however. Since 80
< percent of America's private schools are religious institutions, any
< regulation of these schools must conform to the First Amendment's
< guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

But it is reasonable that a religious school can be regulated on its
academic content. They are not, but that is beside the point.

If a State wanted to assure that none of its school age children were dumb
as rocks, it could in theory regulate all educational material from an
academic perspective. For example, a private school can not teach that 1 + 1
= 3. Having said that, the free market dictates that people will not pay for
services of a private school if it fails to adequately teach the children.
If a private school is going to insist that 1 + 1 = 3, they won't be
teaching very many kids for very long because nobody is going to pay for
such an education.

We can regulate education aside from defining the religious content of the
education.

<A state's excessive regulation may in fact eliminate a parent's right
< to direct the education of their child. In 1923, the Supreme Court
< struck down a Nebraska statute that prohibited the teaching of German
< to elementary school age children. The Court determined that the law
< unreasonably interfered with the power of parents to control their
< children's education. Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390
< (1923). Similarly, in 1927, the Supreme Court held a Hawaiian law
< unconstitutional that regulated the teachers, curriculum, and
< textbooks of private language schools and placed control of the
< schools in public officers. "Enforcement," the Court said, "would
< deprive parents of fair opportunity to procure for their children
< instruction which they think important and we cannot say is harmful."
< Farrington v. T. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 298 (1927).
<
<In 1976, the Ohio Supreme Court applied Farrington in a constitutional
< challenge to the state's "minimum standards" governing nonpublic
< schools. The state court determined that the standards were "so
< pervasive and all-encompassing that total compliance with each and
< every standard by a non-public school would effectively eradicate the
< distinction between public and non-public education, and thereby
< deprive these appellants of their traditional interest as parents to
< direct the upbringing and education of their children". Ohio v.
< Whisner, 351 N.E.2d 750, 768 (1976).

But why would
it do that, the academic standards of private schools is generally higher
than that of public schools already.

You keep saying it, but you can provide no evidence, because in fact
the standards are NOT higher.

The children that get private school education generally do better as they
progress through the higher educational levels. This is a well known fact.
It isn't always true, but the exceptions generally reflect more on the
student than on the school they attended. To wit, it is rare that an entire
class of a private school will do poorly in post secondary schooling. There
is the random student that may not do very well, but that is a reflection on
the student because the rest of his classmates seem to do fine.

You keep denying it, but provide no evidence that the standards are not
higher. The fact is that private schools conform to market forces, and
people that wish to send a kid to a private school will demand more of the
education provider than they demand of the public school system. If the
private schools do no better than the public schools, what's the point of
putting a kid in a private school? Surely a shitty education that is free is
much better than a shitty education that somebody has to pay for
out-of-pocket.

The FL Constitution doesn't prohibit public funding of private schools,

The above sentence from the Constitution contradicts that claim. The
court explicitly declined to address that issue at this point because
the other clause was sufficient.

it prohibits public funding of unequal schools.

It does that too.

It does that more. But the point is that the State Constitution can be
amended to allow the funding of private schools by saying that all
children
shall receive at public expense an education of such-and-such a level, or
higher. Then a parent can receive a voucher and go about buying a better
education for his children.

If the state constitution were amended, all sorts of weirdness might
result. But that is a big "if".

Yes, but the state constitution can be amended to allow vouchers for
education. I am not suggesting it is a good idea, I only suggest that it
could happen.

No mention of quality. The point is that they aren't the SAME.

Of course they aren't the same. The argument can be made -- very easily, I
might add -- that public schools aren't even the same, and therefore the
public schools system violates the state constitution.

That argument could be made against charter schools, which is why they
might be constitutionally questionable. But the regular public
schools operate under the same standards and regulations everywhere in
the state.

They might operate under the same standards and regulations, but the results
vary widely. Since the results vary widely, then an argument could be made
that the education is not equal, and therefore in violation of the state
constitution. The state itself apparently feels that the results of the
educational process are not equal, and it is offering vouchers in an effort
to provide a better education to those that are not getting all they
bargained for from the state.

The diversion of funds from public to private schools actually INCREASES
the
Per Child funds available to public schools.

Not relevant, and likely not true as well since it ignores the way
school funding actually works.

Bob, it's simple math. If the state funds $6000 per year per kid, and there
are 300 kids in the school, then the funding is $1,800,000. If the school
then turns around and jetisons 100 kids with a voucher for $5000, then the
remaining 200 kids will share $1,300,000, which works out to $6500 per
child. The state is not spending one additional dime on education, but is
increasing per child funding by $500 for those that remain in the public
school. Add to this monetary benifit the fact that the student/teacher ratio
also improves, and there is nothing but good that comes to the remaining
kids.

Bob, it's simple math. If the state funds $6000 per year per kid, and there
are 300 kids in the school, then the funding is $1,800,000. If the school
then turns around and jetisons 100 kids with a voucher for $5000, then the
remaining 200 kids will share $1,300,000, which works out to $6500 per
child. The state is not spending one additional dime on education, but is
increasing per child funding by $500 for those that remain in the public
school. Add to this monetary benifit the fact that the student/teacher ratio
also improves, and there is nothing but good that comes to the remaining
kids.