Zelman Vs Harris Analysis

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines can be reasoned

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

school environment" (Eaton, 2014). The Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling on a case

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruling of the case of Zelman V. Simmons-Harris stated that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause to provide scholarships for some students to attend private or parochial schools.  This ruling had a subsequent impact on the development of S1872, also known as the Opportunity Scholarship Act. This act allowed for vouchers to go to private or religious schools. Changes from S1872 resulted in an almost $1 billion dollar revenue loss for school funding by the end of its fifth year (NJEA, 2011).  In addition to the government revenue lost, a 100% tax credit is given to companies who donate to these funds thus losing additional revenue.  The children given these scholarship vouchers are children from targeted failing school areas, which then result in that already failing district to lose additional weighted funding for those children.

The idea of school vouchers sounds like a wonderful idea to get children the best possible education, until the issue is analyzed more closely. In reality, this system is hurting more children than the ones that they are helping. The people and institutions that do not support the use of vouchers believe that by taking away funds from the already failing public school system, it is causing a decrease in the level of education for children in public schools. With new initiatives like the “No Child Left Behind” campaign causing and the greater demands on teachers and children there is not room for a cut in funding (Traub 13). There are also increasing amounts of standardized tests, with guidelines that teachers

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

This paper argues that school vouchers can have a tremendous impact on incentives and performances Depends on the type of voucher. Two types exist. The ‘voucher shock” and the “threat of vouchers.” Many people are against school vouchers. The argument is that the vouchers are a violation of constitutional rights. That spending funding and forcing schools to behave a certain way is unethical. However, many are supportive of the school voucher program. Parents feel that if a school is not up to par perhaps loosing students and perhaps closing the doors is the best choice. Many believe that children have a right to education and to decide exactly how the citizens tax dollars toward education are being spent and if the youth are educated properly.

Since the 1980s, charter schools have allowed families to exercise school choice, a practice that had begun a few decades earlier when parents preferred to control their children’s education because of religious views or racial prejudices. As dissatisfaction with the performance public schools grew during the late 20th century, parents called on government to subsidize an arrangement where children could receive adequate education outside of the traditional public school system. Thus, two major school choice devices emerged: charter schools, privately run schools that receive public funding, and tuition vouchers, which cover some or all of tuition at participating private schools.

Not all public schools provide education at an equal caliber; many districts, particularly in small towns and inner cities, lack the education to provide students with the same quality students receive elsewhere. In these cases, students are confined by invisible zoning lines to schools that do not offer the same opportunities that leave students without help. Because of this, vouchers were invented -- vouchers intend to help those students by giving them the necessary funding to attend private or charter schools. Vouchers programs promise to provide all students with the opportunity for a better education. These good intentions look extremely well on paper, when many real-life factors are not take into account. However, the truth of the matter is this: when implemented into America’s education system in real-life, voucher programs fail miserably for a multitude of reasons, starting with where the money for vouchers comes from: public education

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

The New York Times published an article on June 28, 2002 by an unknown publisher about, “The Wrong Ruling on Vouchers,” where the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling upheld school vouchers in Cleveland. The author argues that the Supreme Court’s decision is damaging to education in America and violates the Constitution's First Amendment.

To reiterate, these cases reinforce our founding fathers vision, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Each of these cases brings are nation closer and closer to the fruition of their dream for the nation.

The article supports its’ argument or thesis with the premise that Cleveland’s voucher program violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The article supports its’ premise with the supporting argument that students are subjected to religious training, training that the United States government is financing. Students are required, by the schools that are receiving taxpayer dollars, to attend Mass or other religious services. The article supports its’ supporting argument by providing examples as to how the government voucher program funds parochial schools and ultimately violates the First Amendment. The Voucher program uses

Imagine going to school and finding half of your friends are moving to different schools because they have qualified for a school voucher. It’s difficult to see them go because you have known them all your life. It’s also difficult to watch them attend the school which everyone knows in your community is known to better than the one you are currently attending. Questions are also brought up to your mind with school vouchers. Students who don’t qualify may ask themselves am I put into a disadvantage because my friends are attending a school, which is known to better than mine? Did my friends choose to attend this school or were there parents up to it? These questions can cause a dilemma to the students and their families. There are