DeVos moves to allow religious groups to provide federally-funded services to private schools
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced Monday her agency will no longer enforce a federal provision that prohibits religious organizations from giving private schools federally funded services.
The decision is in response to a 2017 Supreme Court verdict that found that Missouri unconstitutionally denied a church-run preschool publicly-funded tire scraps for its playground
“The Trinity Lutheran decision reaffirmed the long-understood intent of the First Amendment to not restrict the free exercise of religion,” DeVos said in a statement . “Those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers should not be discriminated against simply based on the religious character of their organization.”
She added that a federal law overseeing all elementary, middle and high schools that mandates students receive “equitable services” unconstitutionally bars contractors from having affiliations with religious organization. The Education Department will still enforce the other provisions of the law.
DeVos sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) outlining her conclusion.
“House Democrats are carefully reviewing the legality of the administration’s new policy,” Joshua Weisz, a spokesman for the House Education Committee, told The New York Times .
President Trump has actively sought to extend religious liberty protections to church groups whose public activities have been regulated in the past. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued guidance in 2017 to other cabinet secretaries saying that laws “must not discriminate against religious organizations in their contracting or grant-making activities.”
“Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law,” Sessions wrote. “Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting and programming.”
BY TAL AXELROD - 03/12/19 08:00 PM EDT
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
204 visitors
The Trinity Lutheran decision is the law of the land
If a private school is going to receive federal services, then I say they should fall under federal standards and mandates.
Seems fair. Is that not what's happening here?
I honestly don't know. I thought private schools could set their own curriculum and guidelines.
I honestly don't know either.
But public schools can set their own curriculum, too. There isn't as much latitude on things like religion courses, but they can decide which sciences to offer, which electives to offer, which foreign languages, etc.
Federal law overseeing all elementary, middle and high schools that mandates students receive “equitable services” unconstitutionally bars contractors from having affiliations with religious organization.
This is one of many things I don't like my tax money spent on
Ditto.
I'm not sure I understand the objection. What money is being spent where and why is it a problem?
On of the things I agree with you on
why should tax money support a religious school? They think they are better than regular people so let them pay for it
Meh. I think it depends on the situation.
One of the very rare occasions I am in complete agreement with you here. Betsy Devos is totally unqualified for her position and should never have been appointed to it.
That is a huge sweeping generalization and simply isn't true for most people. They simply believe something different. That doesn't mean they automatically think they are better than folks who don't think the same as them.
That said, if its true that our tax dollars shouldn't subsidize religious schools, then people sending their kids to religious schools should get a public school tax exemption.
Can't have it both ways. Not if you want to be fair to all concerned.
If we buy into a bit of liberal philosophy for a minute...because in this case I don't think they're wrong...we'll presume that government grants for education, health or other social services exist to promote the education, health and/or general welfare of the American people. Usually those grants are tied to some specific need as identified by government officials in charge of overseeing that particular area.
If that need can be met and the general welfare improved by a given group, why should it matter what their religious beliefs are?
So let's ask your question a different way. Why should tax money support a religious hospital? Why should Baylor Medical Center in Dallas or Catholic Health in Denver or Ascension Health in St. Louis be able to treat Medicare patients?
Does your belief extend to the college level? Should students at Notre Dame or Emory or St. John's or Oklahoma Wesleyan be able to get a TEACH grant?
If that's your takeaway about religious people, then the people you've been watching are doing it wrong.
Tell that to the parents who pay to send their children to private schools, while still paying property taxes for the failing public school system.
I worked at a private school for many years.
If regular school is not to your liking you have to pay extra
Why?
Don't you know? Public schools are funded via property taxes.
People who have no children at all pay property taxes and they still benefit from an educated population. They have the option of not owning any property and they can avoid property taxes. I think that money spent educating our children is a good investment however, allowing tax payer money to go to private schools is just welfare for the rich.
So, you are satisfied with the job the public school system is doing? We are getting our moneys worth?
are we getting our moneys worth from all the money we send to other countries?
because if what is good enough for regular people is not good enough for you and you want something else you need to pay for it
The education of our children dosen't relate to "whataboutism". It is a vital function of local government. Afraid to grade it?
You mean the people who have no choice? The Kennedy's didn't send their children to public schools. Inner city families are without many options. Shall we ask them?
taxes pay for one regular school system, it is not perfect and neither are the kids in it.
So your'e satisfied. Ok, thanks for the honest response
Difference is, people who have no children, pay NOTHING for any school. Public or otherwise. No skin in the game as it were.
Putting a double burden on folks who chose a private school is simply not fair. No matter how you try to rationalize that it is.
That said, do your believe we all benefit from private school educations as well?
So, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?
So you're saying that people with no children don't pay taxes? I think they do.
Of course it's fair.
You have a free thing available but you choose to spend extra money. Why should I have to subsidize that?
Depends on the school.
For example.... Giving vouchers to parents that they can use at The Episcopal School of Dallas (where all the billionaire kids go) is welfare for the rich.
Giving a grant to St. Lukes Community United Methodist to open a pre-school to help get the very, very poor kids in that neighborhood ready for kindergarten involves absolutely zero rich people.
What are you referring to exactly?
That we're not going to pay their private school tuition when there are free public schools available?
Happily.
Point me in their direction.
Those are not the people who will benefit from vouchers, and everybody knows it.
Public schools are not free. Taxpayers foot the bill for all of it including pay raises for the teachers
They should be
Are you going to pay my school tax bill. I get one every year, and I have no kids in school.
I think I was pretty clear. If we give taxpayer money to private schools that money has to come from somewhere. Unless you want to pay more taxes, it will most likely come from the public school budgets. The cost of running public schools is still the same. There will be no cost savings for public schools but their budgets will have to be cut. I ask you again, Vic, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?
Taxpayer money does NOT fund private schools
I ask you again, Vic, how does taking money away from public schools and giving it to rich people help the public schools?
We don't do that. Show me where that is being done?
Why do you assume things about me when you don't know me, not complaining, just stating that people who have no kids in school still pay school tax bills
FTA:
If you don't read the article I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
Do you understand what that means? A federal funded service DOES NOT mean the federal government is funding private schools, which pay their own expenses from tuition payments. It means that the federal government cannot give one school a special service (like safety additions to a playground) and withhold the same special service from a religious school.
Understood?
Your tax dollars? Do you pay property taxes?
How is she putting money into private schools?
'charter schools' aren't even part of this discussion
Did I say otherwise, no I did not.
It's still welfare for the rich.
The Supreme Court says it's fairness!
Safe playgrounds for all schools, right?
You know, like "separate but equal is not equal."
But they won't. And let's be honest, nobody calling for vouchers gives a shit about inner-city kids in terrible schools anyway.
It's also not about rich people. Rich people just write the check and don't have to make other sacrifices, so they don't care.
This is about almost-rich people. Almost rich people pay private school tuition at the expense of something else they'd rather spend the money on. They try to rationalize themselves into believing they're being "forced" to "pay twice", which enables them to conclude that the rest of us should subsidize their hyper-mommy neurosis.
I disagree. I think the voucher program (not really what the seed is about) is a genuine option for those poor kids in the inner city. I believe it is a sincere effort to help them get a decent education.
They try to rationalize themselves into believing they're being "forced" to "pay twice", which enables them to conclude that the rest of us should subsidize their hyper-mommy neurosis.
That's not true. I recall going to a religious elementary school. I took a bus from one end of the city to the other. My parents paid (I think) $35 per month, in those days, to send me there. I can still remember one of the nuns saying to us "your parents pay twice to send you here. Maybe President Kennedy will change that". Those nuns were so innocent, yet so much of what they said was profound, now as it was then.
I was responded to this, as in saying you can pay my non-existent school tax bill.
Please provide us with all the details
Sorry, that's not a rebuttal.
Happened with my daughter when she was in middle school. My late wife thought it would be a good idea to send her to a private Christian school in our small home town. Everything seemed to be going great for a couple of months until one morning when kids and staff showed up for school and found all the doors locked and chained. Seems the husband and wife that ran the school had been siphoning off funds into their own pockets and when they figured they had enough from their scam they up and left town. They were caught about a week later trying to drive into Mexico. The husband did some time foe embezzlement and his wife got off with probation by testifying against her husband. My wife later said it was one of the biggest mistakes she ever made and that public schools were not so bad after all. Ironically, that couple's last name was Bacon..
I'm sorry to hear that. Those are things that shouldn't happen in America.
Ya, pictures are easier.
Here:
Its no different than saying your tax dollars shouldn't go to religious schools. People paying for religious schools are also subsidizing public schools they don't believe in.
Its no different at all and they are getting double dipped.
No question about it.
Of course. But we've already paid for the public schools. We can't abolish public schools. So we're going to keep paying for public schools. So we have a thing we're already paying for.... and these parents want us to either pay more or divert some of what we're already paying because they don't like public schools.
The ONLY way I would find that acceptable is if the program stipulated you must live in a neighborhood where the schools fail to meet federal minimum performance standards as measured by rigorously difficult standardized testing.
Which means we would need to set such federal standards. Which means we would have to tell the touchy-feely "not all kids test well" mafia to stop making excuses, the "tests are racist" mafia that it's not the test, it's the shit education their kids get, and the professional educator mafia that their current practices are 50 years behind and they're going to have to change (God help them).
As none of that is ever going to happen, I don't see subsidizing private school tuition.
I don't think I have a problem with the DeVos announcement, because that's a separate thing entirely.
Thanks Tess, I'm going to go through it.
No, they have no skin in the game because they have no kids that require such a decision. Sure, everyone paying property taxes or rent pays for public schools but the people who choose religious schools get hit twice.
Saying that's fair simply because that's what they choose to do doesn't pass the sniff test IMO. Why should they be penalized for choosing a non subsidized school?
Its hypocritical as hell.
That knife cuts both ways. Why should they have to subsidize public schools?
And Public schools are hardly free .....
I disagree
Agreed and it is more difficult than that. We need the federal government to make them meet standards without the federal government politicizing the school system.
As none of that is ever going to happen, I don't see subsidizing private school tuition.
Neither do I
I don't think I have a problem with the DeVos announcement, because that's a separate thing entirely.
You've got it!
They're not being penalized, any more than they're "being penalized" when they get charged more for leather seats instead of cloth, or get charged more for a Canali than a JC Penney suit, or when they get charged to take a tollway rather than the side street.
Are you going to pay more if you have more kids in school than your neighbor with the same property value?
Look, there is no 100% fair way to do this unless public schools charged per pupil like a college does.
My main point here is that is hypocritical for one to say they don't want their tax dollars to go to religious schools but still expect those people to pay for their public schools.
I think that pushes the net fairness of the system much lower when done.
Exactly. So you and I both know that we'll see interstellar travel first.
I hope not
Sorry Jack, not good examples. I suppose i could try to use them though.
Lets say I'm force to pay for a JC Penny suit and then i pay for the Canali i really want. I only get the Canali but i paid for both Would you like that?
I will say that my experience with Catholic school parents is very different than with protestant school parents. I ran one of the local basketball and baseball leagues for about 12 years while my kid was playing, and I got to know hundreds of different families.
The Catholic families I know would say they sent their kids to Catholic school because...."well....that's just what we do". The Baptist or Pentecostal families send their kids to Christian schools to keep them away from some evil influence or another.
I agree we're wandering a bit here, but I think a voucher program limited to low income families in terrible school districts might get less resistance.
No...you got both...you just never wear the JC Penney suit. That's your choice. That doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidize your Canali.
You bet!
We all benefit from that
Nope, as i was forced to pay for the JCP suit even though i didn't want it. That and i never got the JCP suit if we want equivalence here so how could i wear it if i didn't get it?
Yes. Just like you're forced to pay for all sorts of other shit you don't want and don't use. This is America. We're amazing at that.
Public schools are at least something you COULD use if you wanted to. Tons of the shit we pay for isn't even available to guys like us at all. Try to get govt help paying for your kid's college tuition. Get ready to be laughed at. But you're paying for a lot of other kids tuition, be damned sure about that.
When I need to go to the hospital, I can choose to go to the county hospital (Parkland), or a private hospital (Presbyterian). Presby costs more. It's better. I go there. I had a chance to use Parkland, but I opted for the better thing instead.
So even though I'm paying for Parkland every year through my property taxes, I'm not entitled to having my Presby choice subsidized.
Public money covers basic level stuff. If we want Canali level stuff, that's our choice but also our expense.
I can tell you from many years working at a private school and seeing and dealing with many other private schools they are not perfect or anywhere close, nor are the kids that attend them
Not perfect.....Just better.
“Those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers should not be discriminated against simply based on the religious character of their organization.”
What about those seeking to provide high-quality educational services to students and teachers but happen to be gay? Should we allow them to be discriminated against by religious schools? And if they're allowed to discriminate against law abiding tax paying American citizens, rejecting applicants based on their lack of faith or sexual orientation, why exactly should we be sending them our collective tax dollars?
I often hear the argument that we shouldn't pay Planned Parenthood for health services because, even though no money is spent on abortions, the money is supposedly "fungible". Thus any money you give even if it's a reimbursement for a cancer screening, in some peoples minds, is just like paying tax dollars for abortion. I'll bet those same people don't feel that money paid to a religious school for some secular activity would be considered "fungible" and thus be essentially paying for the school to indoctrinate children in a specific religious denomination where teachers tell students that invisible wizards in the sky definitely do exist and that they know the best way to communicate with them and to please them. Just more monumental hypocrisy on display coming from Devos and religious conservatives.
What would make such students require anything more than straight students?
Should we allow them to be discriminated against by religious schools?
What if a Muslim academy refused gay students based on the Koran..what would you say?
And if they're allowed to discriminate against law abiding tax paying American citizens, rejecting applicants based on their lack of faith or sexual orientation, why exactly should we be sending them our collective tax dollars?
So, if private schools don't discriminate (non-discrimination IS, after all, part of religious training) against anyone, you would be ok with the new legal policy?
I often hear the argument that we shouldn't pay Planned Parenthood for health services because
Well, Well, Welcome to the club!
You should ask Dismayed that question
Huh? What "students" are requiring "straight students". My comment had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of students, but the sexual orientation of those who are "seeking to provide high-quality educational services" aka teachers and other workers that a school district normally hires. Why should my tax dollars go to fund a school who would reject a highly qualified teacher simply because they were gay?
"What if a Muslim academy refused gay students based on the Koran..what would you say?"
Exactly the same thing. The bullshit fantasy about liberals somehow appeasing Muslims is just that, total bullshit. I despise the religious indoctrination of children no matter what religion is holding them down and prepping the metaphorical religious heroine needle and jabbing into the arms of our youth.
"So, if private schools don't discriminate (non-discrimination IS, after all, part of religious training) against anyone, you would be ok with the new legal policy?"
I would be if they followed the secular rule of law and the taxes were going specifically for secular education curriculum. I'm not a nut job getting all worked up about how "fungible" money is, I know that the reimbursements to PP are not going to fund abortion, so as long as the money going to the schools is earmarked for specific secular activities then I don't have a problem.
"Well, Well, Welcome to the club!"
Not sure what club pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives would be, but if that's the club you're starting I'd definitely consider joining. My comment did not in any way agree with those angry with PP over fungible donations, as I said "I often hear", not "I often agree".
Welcome back to the conversation.
Why should my tax dollars go to fund a school who would reject a highly qualified teacher simply because they were gay?
Your tax dollars don't fund private schools, however the government can't discriminate against private schools. If government provides safety measures for one type of school they must provide it for all schools.
Exactly the same thing.
I am so glad to hear that.
Not sure what club
The "club" is those of us who have items that our tax dollars pay for which we don't agree with. The Constitution provides for all that. It's called elections.
Meh. I'm not sure about this one.
What's to keep somebody who wants their backyard re-done from starting a "school" just to get grant money?
Licensing!
Try it..See how easy it would be
Well that actually opens the door on what I think is the direction we should be taking for education reform throughout the country.
If we increased accreditation requirements, and then held public schools accountable for things like actual academic performance of their students instead of concentrating almost solely on minimum skills and drop out rate, you would see American education turn around relatively quickly.
We're not going to do that, because the educational establishment would never allow it.
So what we're going to move toward instead is online education. It's cheaper, more efficient, more flexible, and gets schools out of the crowd control business.
Correct on all counts
Thank you all for a civil conversation.