Supreme Court - School vouchers legal

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that tuition vouchers are legal for private schools, a landmark church-state decision that could remap the educational landscape by allowing wider public financing of religious schools.

The 5-4 decision allows taxpayer money to underwrite tuition at private or parochial schools if parents retain a wide choice of where to send their children. Like other recent rulings led by the court's conservative majority, the case allows blending of government and religion, and it takes that trend further than ever before.

The ruling sets a precedent that could be duplicated all over the country. But while local religious schools and some parents are excited about the possibilities, local public schools aren't yet ready to talk about it.

David Fuemmeler, superintendent of Nell Holcomb School in Cape Girardeau County, said since all voucher systems are different and Missouri doesn't currently have one, it's difficult to form an opinion on the subject. Darryl Sauer, superintendent of the Zalma School District in Bollinger County, agreed.

"I just haven't read enough into the case because it hasn't affected us yet," Sauer said.

Vouchers are an education idea championed by conservatives including President Bush, who call them a ticket out of dismal and dangerous public schools. Opponents say they are a sham and divert badly needed public money from already strapped public schools.

The decision closed out the court's annual term.

Brad Wittenborn, assistant principal at Notre Dame Regional High School in Cape Girardeau, said the voucher system for students in kindergarten through 12th grade just makes sense.

"I think that part of our whole system of government is one of choice, freedom and responsibility," he said. "It makes sense that parents should be able to choose what type of school their children attend."

Wittenborn said parents already have freedom to send their children to any daycare or college they want, but K-12 education has always been the "missing piece."

Janice Margrabe, principal at Eagle Ridge Christian School in Cape Girardeau, says vouchers in Missouri would mean good news for her school.

"Enrollment would definitely rise," she said. "I don't have any problems at all accepting funding, as long as it doesn't infringe on our curriculum programs."

The court majority said vouchers do not put the government in the unconstitutional position of promoting religion so long as parents make schooling choices for their children and have a wide menu of public, private or religious schools.

Monica Waldon, a parent of a soon-to-be fourth grader at Franklin Elementary School in Cape Girardeau, said she supports vouchers because, if parents or students aren't happy their schools and they can't afford to move to another area they can still go to another school, parochial or not.

Cleveland as litmus test

The ruling upholds a program in inner-city Cleveland that gives mostly poor parents a tuition subsidy of up to $2,225 per child. The city has one of the worst-rated school systems in the nation.

"The Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Cleveland parents may spend the money at private academies, church-run schools or at suburban public schools with better academic credentials. In practice, however, more than 95 percent of the participating schools are church-affiliated.

The court majority rejected arguments that the program created the impression of government-sponsored religion.

"No reasonable observer would think a neutral program of private choice, where state aid reaches religious schools solely as a result of the numerous independent decisions of private individuals, carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement," Rehnquist wrote.

The voucher case spawned enormous public relations efforts among supporters and opponents.

The ruling also provoked three overlapping and strongly worded dissents. Justice David H. Souter wrote the main one, which was joined by fellow liberal-leaning justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Souter took the unusual step of announcing his dissent from the bench, and took aim at the idea that giving parents lots of spending choices cancels out constitutional worries about where the money ends up.

"There is, in any case, no way to interpret the 96.6 percent of current voucher money going to religious schools as reflecting a free and genuine choice by the families that apply for vouchers," Souter wrote.

Writing separately, Stevens said the majority forgot the historical lessons of America's own founding, and the modern examples of religious unrest in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

"Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy," Stevens wrote.

Thursday's ruling means the roughly 4,000 students in the 6-year-old Cleveland program may return to their parochial or private classrooms in the fall, and probably also guarantees that similar voucher programs in Milwaukee and Florida will continue.

The ruling focused on whether the program violated the First Amendment's guarantee that government will not establish religion. With that constitutional cloud lifted, states may design new voucher programs like Cleveland's.

Voucher supporters and opponents both predicted the debate will now shift to state legislatures.

Teachers' unions lead the opposition, arguing that they drain public schools of motivated students, involved parents and crucial cash. Supporters counter that vouchers can force public schools to shed sluggish bureaucracies and compete to hold onto students and funding.

Congress last year shelved a White House voucher plan. Bush resurrected the idea this year, proposing in his 2003 budget to give families up to $2,500 per child in tax credits if they choose a private school rather than a failing neighborhood public school.

Thursday's ruling continues the conservative court majority's recent pattern of loosening the rules for using state money for religious purposes, and of mandating equal treatment for religious organizations or ideas.

The court has allowed tax deductions in Minnesota for parochial education expenses, state tuition aid for a Washington seminary student, and sign language interpreters for deaf parochial school students.

The court has also opened schoolhouse doors to a Bible club, required school funding for a religious magazine and allowed government aid for computers and tutoring in parochial schools.

Thursday's cases are Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751; Hannah Perkins School v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1777; Taylor v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1779.

Staff writer Heather Kronmueller contributed to this report.