Outline on the Wrong Ruling on Vouchers free essay sample

The voucher programs allows students to use stipends to choose where they want to attend school. B. The issue lies with the fact that students’ only options are between low-performing public schools and parochial schools. C. This choice is subsidized by tax payers and therefore unconstitutional. II. Cleveland’s limited stipend pushes students towards less expensive parochial schools A.Cleveland’s stipends are capped at $2,250 which are much lower than tuition costs of traditional private schools. B. Parochial schools are the best option for students using vouchers because they are within the price range of the stipends. C. Nearly 96. 6 percent of students using vouchers attend religious affiliated schools. III. The publicly funded vouchers go against separation of Church and State A. Religious teaching cannot be funded by the state and violates the First Amendment. B. Students attending parochial schools can be required to purchase religious texts and materials with tax dollars. We will write a custom essay sample on Outline on the Wrong Ruling on Vouchers or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page C. The voucher program goes against church and state because it uses public funds to indoctrinate religious beliefs in students. IV. Addressing counter-arguments on First Amendment issue A. Counterargument is that the First Amendment is not violated because parents decide where to send their children. B. With the state of Cleveland’s education system, parents do not a have a wealth of options. C. Regardless of the parents’ decision, tax payers should not be forced to fund religious teaching of students. V. The court ruling also does damage to the education system A.The common argument to support the voucher system is the belief that it will force public schools to compete for students. B. This theory would hurt the public school system by draining talented students and much needed funds. Conclusion:â€Å"As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, 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. This court has removed many bricks.