Thursday, January 30, 2020

BRUCE BAKER and PRESTON GREEN: Should plaintiffs in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about school choice be careful what they wish for?

Religious institutions, school choice and tax credits in education

OPINION: Should plaintiffs in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about school choice be careful what they wish for?
How the impacts of a decision on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue could differ from expectations


Editor’s note: Montana parent Kendra Espinoza hoped a tax credit would help her pay for a private Christian school for her daughters. But her state’s constitution contains an amendment that bars taxpayer aid to religious institutions. Now, it’s all up to the U.S. Supreme Court as it decides Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. What would a decision in Espinoza’s favor really mean for school choice and public education? The Hechinger Report asked several experts to weigh in. For the perspective of the Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher, click here. Rutgers’ Bruce Baker and UConn’s Preston Green discuss the issues below.

When states choose to operate a program that involves public (or publicly governed) financing of private service providers, can the state choose to exclude religious providers?
That’s the question that Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue asks about U.S. schools.
It’s been nearly two decades since the U.S. Supreme Court said government programs that provide vouchers for schooling, including religious schools, do not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, even where most available options are religious schools.
That is, publicly financed, government-administered voucher programs that include religious schools are permissible under the CONTINUE READING: Religious institutions, school choice and tax credits in education