For John, BLUF: There are different understandings of the use and value of School Vouchers. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From Politico, Reporter Caitlin Emma gives us "Jindal scores a win with appeals court voucher ruling" Here is the lede plus one:
The Justice Department suffered a setback Tuesday when the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in effect ruled that the feds don't have the authority to regulate Louisiana's school voucher program.My first question is why does the lede paint this is a defeat for the Department of Justice?
In a 2-1 decision written by Judge Edith Jones, the appeals court says a district court had no jurisdiction to let DOJ collect data and monitor the voucher program.
Then we move on to vouchers. Why do we not see vouchers for what they are, a chance for parents to exercise choice with regard to their children's school. Rich folks have school choice because they have the money to send their child where they wish. When I was young the meme was that the truly rich sent their children to school in Switzerland, sort of like Kim Jong-un.
In Louisiana the State Government is offering that same school choice to all parents, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or nation of origin.
So, the Department of Justice, in fear that some might suffer under this program, would scupper the whole thing, depriving all middle and lower class Louisiana parents of the chance to exercise choice in the education of their children.
Vouchers are about options. As for taking money away from public schools, vouchers do, along with taking the students. The use of vouchers are a sign that parents are not happy with the public school in the area. Vouchers are a sign that the school is not doing the job their customers, the parents, are looking for.
Of course here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the idea of Vouchers, at least for parochial schools, is unconstitutional.♠
Hat tip to Memeorandum.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Concern about the Papist hordes overrunning the fair Commonwealth.