Thursday, June 5, 2014

NYC Can Bar Worship Services in Schools


      In April, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said again that N.Y. City could constitutionally forbid the Bronx Household of Faith and other churches to hold worship services in public schools.
      Writing for the majority, Judge Pierre Leval used almost the same reasoning as he had when the court ruled the same way in 2011.
      In both cases he declared a religious worship service a particular kind of activity, essentially different from the speech it includes, such as prayer, religious instruction, expression of devotion to God, and the singing of hymns.
      Leval quoted from the 2011 decision, noting the “important difference between excluding the conduct of an event or activity that includes expression of a point of view, and excluding the expression of that point of view.”
      The church has taken its case up and down the court system so many times, that Judge Leval referred to the April decision as Bronx V. While the case moved from court to court, Bronx Household worshipped in P.S. 15 for fourteen years.
      It may continue to worship there. First, the church has appealed the April ruling. Second, N.Y. City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, said during his campaign that he would allow worship in the city’s public schools.
      Third, after the 2011 decision, the Legislature nearly passed a bill requiring N.Y. City to let churches worship in public schools. Only a 2012 District Court victory for the church stopped the process. If the church loses its appeal, and de Blasio changes his mind, legislators could revive the 2011 bill.
      In 2011, Bronx Household had argued that it had a free-speech right to worship in a public school. After it lost the case, the church sued again, claiming that the school policy unconstitutionally burdened its religious liberty.
      It reasoned this way:
      N.Y. City charges users of its buildings only a maintenance fee, a payment much lower than a N.Y. City rent. If the city bars worship services in its buildings, the church must pay high rent elsewhere. The high rent burdens the church’s religious liberty. The District Court agreed.
     In April, Judge Leval wrote, “The Free Exercise Clause…has never been understood to require government to finance a subject’s exercise of religion.”
      Some congregations do not hold worship services. The District Court said N.Y. City’s ban on worship services discriminated against those groups that held them.
      Judge Leval disagreed. He wrote, “Religions that conduct religious worship services.…may use the facilities for the same purposes and in the same manner as the facilities are used by religions that do not conduct religious worship services.”
      N.Y. City bars worship services in public schools, because it doesn’t want to violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion.
      The District Court said the U.S. Supreme Court had never interpreted the No-Establishment Clause to forbid worship services in public schools, so the city must allow them.
      Judge Leval said the High Court had explicitly rejected that argument. He observed that city school board had good cause to consider the worship services a religious establishment. He wrote,
      “During Sunday services, under the District Court’s injunction, the Board’s schools are dominated by church use: ‘Church members post signs, distribute flyers, and proselytize outside the school buildings; both congregants and members of the public identify the churches with the schools.’”
      The District Court said N.Y. City had violated the No-Establishment Clause, because it decided what made a worship service.
      Judge Leval wrote, “The Board’s policy is to rely on the applicant’s own characterization.…The Board may…look beyond the application at the applicant’s website and other public materials.”
      He added, “Even if the Board were making its own determinations, [the Supreme Court] would not prohibit such a policy.” He referred to a recent suit in which the Justices themselves determined whether a particular church employee was a minister.
      The case is N.Y. City School Board v. Bronx Household of Faith V.

Cagey Ruling on Sectarian Banners

“The decision puts us back at square one,” said Rebecca Robertson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLU).
“These banners send a message to students of minority faiths and non-believers that they are not welcome at their own football games.”
At high school football games in Kountze, Texas, the cheerleaders carry banners with quotations from the New Testament.
For example, one banner read, “I can do all things through CHRIST which strengthens me.”
Somebody complained. The superintendent consulted a lawyer and banned the banners.
Several cheerleaders sued the school district in state court. Their lawyer claimed that the cheerleaders had a right to express their personal opinions on the banners.
The Kountze school board declared that it, not the cheerleaders, controlled the banner displays. However, the board adopted a policy to allow the religious messages as “fleeting expressions of community sentiment.”
The(ACLU) submitted a brief. It agreed that the school board controlled the displays.
It asked the court to forbid the religious messages, because they violated the No-Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They endorsed religion, coerced audience participation, and entangled the school with religion.
In May, the Court of Appeals Judge dodged the church-state issue.
He ruled that the cheerleaders had no standing to sue, because the district had agreed to allow the religious banners.
He avoided offending the pro-banner citizens, and he upheld the authority of the school district.
The district got what it wanted, until somebody challenges the banners in federal court. The cheerleaders’ lawyer will ask the Texas Supreme Court to let the cheerleaders direct the banner display.
The case is Matthews v. Kountze.

Arizona Vouchers Upheld

In April, the Arizona Supreme Court in effect approved a state voucher law, the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Act (ESA).
In October, the Arizona mid-level Court of Appeals had upheld the Act.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, but in April, it refused to hear the appeal.
The Arizona Constitution says, “No tax shall be laid for the appropriation of public money made in aid of any private or sectarian school.…” and “No money shall be appropriated or applied to any religious instruction.”
Under the ESA, eligible children get cash to buy lessons at private schools, including religious ones.
To get grants, parents must waive their children’s Arizona constitutional right to a public education.
Parents who home school or otherwise hold down education costs may pay for college with the saved dollars.
In 2012 and 2013, Arizona courts upheld the ESA, because the tax-raised funds traveled through parents’ hands before it got to religious schools.
The Court of Appeals stressed that parents could spend the money on a variety of educational activities. 
The case is Niehaus v. Huppenthal.

Vouchers for Disabled, Military, & D.C. Kids

D.C. Residents
Congress imposed a tuition-voucher program on the District of Columbia over the objections of its government. U.S. Senate bill S.1909, the CHOICE Act, would expand indefinitely both the number of children enrolled and the duration of the program.

Disabled Children
Under the CHOICE Act, states could use tax-raised federal funds provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) to provide private-school tuition vouchers for disabled children.
The beneficiary schools could discriminate among applicants on the basis of religion and sex.
Religious schools could choose employees on the basis of religion.

Military Children
The CHOICE Act would create a five-year pilot program. The federal government would spend tax-raised dollars on private-school tuition vouchers for children who live in selected military areas.
The vouchers payments would rise with inflation.
The beneficiary schools could discriminate on the basis of religion and sex.
Religious schools could advance religion. If they did, the voucher students would have to take the lessons and participate in the worship services.
Religious schools could discriminate against employees on the basis of religion.
The Act would authorize $10 million a year for the program, the money to be deducted from the salaries and expenses of the U.S. Department of Education.

Letters to Senators
U.S. postal service to Congress has never recovered from the anthrax scare. If you send letters to our U.S. Senators, please address their local offices.

Bill Would Convert U.S. Education Aid to Vouchers


Under U.S. Senate bill S.1968, the Scholarships for Kids Act, states could spend tax-raised federal education dollars on tuition grants for poor children to attend private schools, including religious ones.

Participating states need not “submit any standards for academic content or student academic achievement for review or approval.”

The beneficiary private schools could discriminate among children on the basis of sex.

Religious schools could advance religion.

If a they did, the voucher students would have to take the lessons and participate in the worship.

Religious schools could hire and fire on a religious basis.

The federal government would assess the program, but it could not require the state to collect any information that it would not otherwise collect.

For instance, a state could refuse to provide information about the effect of the vouchers on court-ordered racial integration of public schools.

No federal employee could exercise any supervision over “the instructional content or materials, curriculum, program of instruction.”

U.S. postal service to Congress has never recovered from the anthrax scare. If you send letters to your U.S. Senators, please address their local offices.

MA Supreme Court Upholds "Under God" in Pledge


In September, attorney David Niose told the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that the phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance discriminates against school children who don’t believe in God.

He said the phrase “portrays true patriots as those who believe the nation is under God, whereas it portrays nonbelievers as second-class citizens at best, downright unpatriotic at worst.”

In May, the Court unanimously disagreed. It held that under God did not violate the State Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Chief Justice Roderick Ireland wrote, “There is no evidence…that the Doe children have ever been subjected to any type of punishment, bullying, or other mistreatment, criticism, condemnation, or ostracism as a result of not participating in the pledge or not reciting the words under God.”

He declared, “Reciting the pledge …is not a litmus test for defining who is or who is not patriotic. The schools confer no privilege or advantage of patriotism…to those who recite the pledge in its entirety.”

Justice Barbara Lenk concurred, because the Doe children had not suffered. However, she thought the phrase did discriminate.

She wrote, “A reference to a supreme being, by its very nature, distinguishes between those who believe such a being exists and those whose beliefs are otherwise.…

“Should future plaintiffs demonstrate that the distinction created by the pledge…has engendered…differential treatment, I would leave open the possibility that the equal rights amendment might provide a remedy.”


The case is American Humanist Association v. Doe. 

Tax Credit Vouchers Not in NY Budget

“Once again, Catholic-school kids get kicked to the curb, along with children attending other faith-sponsored schools,” wrote Archbishop Timothy Dolan in the N.Y. Post of April 1.

Although the N.Y. Senate passed a bill diverting $1.5 million per year of state income tax receipts to nonpublic, mostly religious schools, the Assembly rejected it.

The N.Y. State League of Women Voters warns, “We remain vigilant on the issue, as the proposal may well come up again in the remaining months of this legislative session.”

If you have not sent your letter yet, here’s the information you need. The bill is the Education Investment Incentives Act, Assembly bill A1826B and Senate bill S4099A.

Under it, taxpayers would collect 100% credits against their state income tax BILLS for donations to scholarship organizations.

The organizations would send the money to schools, mostly religious ones, for the tuition of children who meet the schools’ requirements.

The credit is not the familiar deduction from income before taxes. The state would pay all, not part of the gift.

In effect, N.Y. State would direct the income tax payments of donors to sectarian schools.

The Assembly bill would cap total credits for gifts to nonpublic-school scholarship funds at $1.25 million a year, while the Senate bill would cap them at $1.5 million a year.

The legislation would probably violate Art. XI, Sec. 3 of the N.Y. Constitution, which forbids use of state credit, even indirectly, in aid or maintenance of religious schools.

N.Y. Assembly

You can address all N.Y. State Assembly members at: N.Y. State Assembly, Albany NY 12248.

To Identify Your N.Y. State Assembly Member

If you  have no access to a computer, you can call your county board of elections.  If you have access to a computer, you can take the following steps to learn the name of your Assembly Member.

1. Google N.Y. State Assembly.
2. Click Assembly Members.
3. Click Member Search.
4. A dialogue box will appear. Fill it in.
5. Click submit.
6. Your Assembly Member’s name and website link will appear. If you want to send your message by email from the website, click on the link.
7. When the website appears, look for the word Contact. Click on it.
8. Your Assembly Member’s email address will appear. Click on it, and the email form will appear.

N.Y. Senate

You can address all N.Y. State Senators at: N.Y. State Senate, Albany NY 12247.

To Identify Your N.Y. State Senator

If you have no access to a computer, you can call your county board of elections. If you have access to a computer, you can take the following steps to learn the name of your Senator.

1. Google N.Y. State Senate.
2. Click Senators.
3. You will see on the screen’s upper left a dialogue box headed Find My Senator. Fill in the blanks and click submit.

4. You will see a screen with your Senator’s name and a space where you can write or paste a message.

Monday, February 10, 2014

NY State Campaign for Tax-Funded Religious Ed


In January, an article in the Westchester, N.Y.  Journal News reported that a set of very rich men have so far allocated more than $4.7 million dollars to promote S4099A, the Education Investment Incentives Act, a N.Y. Senate tuition tax credit bill.

They have bankrolled a foundation and its political action committee (PAC), contributed to the election campaigns of more than 100 state legislators, funded well-publicized rallies of private-school students, and put five lobbying firms on retainer.

When a reporter for the Journal News called the foundation, he was referred to James Cultrara, director of education for the N.Y. State Catholic Conference. The Catholic Conference represents the state’s Catholic bishops in matters of public policy. The reporter asked Cultrara about campaign contributions by the foundation’s PAC.

Cultrara responded, “We decided that this time around, not participating at that level was a tremendous disadvantage, and we weren’t going to take a chance. Lawmakers clearly have to run for re-election. It’s not free. Just like countless other PACs, we felt it was necessary to participate at that level.”

Under S4099A, N.Y. taxpayers would collect 100% credits against their state income tax BILLS for donations to scholarship organizations. The organizations would send the donors’ money to schools, including religious ones, for the tuition of children who meet the schools’ requirements. In states that have such programs, nearly all the scholarship money goes to religious schools.

The tax credits would not be the familiar charitable deduction from income before taxes. The state would pay all, not part of the donation. In effect, N.Y. State would direct the income tax payments of donors to sectarian schools.

The Act forbids public officials to regulate the schools it funds.

It includes some exceptions that limit the benefits of the credits. In any one year, a taxpayer can’t take the credit for more than 75% of his or her tax bill. The bill caps total credits for gifts to nonpublic-school scholarships at $1.5 million a year. If credits exceed $1.5 million before the state registers a particular donor’s tax return, he or she can subtract the donated money from a future year’s tax payment, for up to five years.

The Act offers a sweetener for public schools. Donors to public school districts can also claim the tax credits, up to $1.5 million a year. That is, N.Y. State would grant its richest residents the opportunity to distribute an extra $1.5 million per year in state aid to their own public school districts. The legislature can surely find a fairer way to distribute an additional $1.5 million to the state’s public schools.

The legislation probably violates Article XI, Section 3, of the N.Y. Constitution, which explicitly forbids the use of state credit, even indirectly, in aid or maintenance of religious schools.

The Act has no Assembly companion, but it differs little from the Assembly bill, A1826B.

If you would like to tell your N.Y. State senators what you think of S4099A, here is a sample, basic letter.

Dear Senator——,

Please oppose S4099A, the Education Investment Incentives Act, which would provide tax-raised funds for nonpublic schools, including religious ones, by means of donor credits against the State income tax BILL.

You can address all N.Y. State Senators at: N.Y. State Senate, Albany NY 12247.

To Identify Your N.Y. State Senator

If you have no access to a computer, you can call your county Board of Elections.

If you have access to a computer, you can take the following steps to learn the name of your state senator.

1. Google N.Y. State Senate.

2. Click Senators.

3. You will see on the screen’s upper left a dialogue box headed Find My Senator. Fill in the blanks and click submit.

4. You will see a screen with your senator’s name and a space where you can write or paste your message.

NH Governor v. Lawmakers in Tax Credit Lawsuit


The Attorney General of New Hampshire is defending a state tuition tax credit act in court.

In January, New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan filed an amicus brief opposing the law. It says, “The governor treasures the diversity of private schools in our state, and fully appreciates their contributions.…But the decision to contribute to a private religious school is a personal decision. It should not be supported by the state’s tax structure, and it should not have the effect of diverting scarce taxpayer dollars from crucial public needs.”

In 2012, the New Hampshire legislature enacted a tuition tax credit bill over the veto of then-Governor John Lynch. Bill Duncan, an advocate for public education, sued, backed by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union. The case is Duncan v. New Hampshire.

In June, Superior Court Judge John M. Lewis struck down the aid for religious schools, because it violated the New Hampshire Constitution; but he allowed benefits to continue for non-religious private schools. The Attorney General appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. So did Bill Duncan, who asked the Court to strike down the entire act.

The State Constitution says, “No money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of schools or institutions of any sect or denomination.”

In his decision, Judge Lewis summed up the Attorney General’s position, “The defendants strongly argue that the program does not involve ‘public funds’ or ‘money raised by taxation.’…to constitute such ‘public funds,’ it is argued, the money involved must be collected from the taxpayers and deposited in the New Hampshire treasury.”

The judge rejected that argument. He wrote, “The tax credit under the program is an ‘archetypal tax expenditure,’ which ‘serves the same function as direct government spending’ and has long been recognized as equivalent to a direct appropriation ‘by public finance economists and analysts for at least half a century.’”

Governor Hassan personally opposes the complete act, but her brief argues only against the aid for religious schools. She spoke against the law when she campaigned for governor in 2012, and she cheered Judge Lewis’s decision.

Duncan argues that the state can not justly apply the remains of the act “when it is unclear—as is the case here—whether the legislature would have enacted a statute without the offending provision. Much of the support for the program came from religious schools. Key goals of the program are frustrated when religious schools can not receive funding.”

Air Cadets Needn't Invoke God

In October, the Air Force Academy announced that it would no longer make cadets say “so help me God” when they took their required Honor Oaths.

Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson, the academy superintendent, issued this statement: “Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect, and that respect includes the ability of our cadets, Airmen and civilian Airmen to freely practice and exercise their religious preference—or not. So in the spirit of respect, cadets may or may not choose to finish the Honor Oath with ‘so help me God.’”

The oath says, “We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God.”

Johnson made the change in response to a complaint by Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

In 1984, the Air Force added the words, “so help me God,” to its original 1959 oath. The other military academies do not refer to God in their oaths.

Weinstein, who graduated from the Academy in 1977, didn’t know about the added language until reporter Pam Zubeck of the Colorado Springs Independent told him about a photograph that displayed the oath.

Weinstein contacted the Academy, and a little more than an hour later Johnson got back to him. She told him that a framed poster of the oath had been taken down. She promised to reconsider the oath promptly, and her promise made news.

The Religious Right got angry. At least two leaders of the Family Research Council (FRC) said George Washington had originated the phrase in his presidential oath. No historical evidence supports that claim.

After Johnson made “so help me God” optional, two Texas congressmen introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for any changes to military oaths.

Weinstein is campaigning for deletion of the religious language. He said any cadet who didn’t swear to God would stand out “like a tarantula on a wedding cake.”

In November, MMRF put its message on a billboard in the Academy’s home town, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The billboard shows a photograph of an oath signed in 1778 at Valley Forge by General George Washington. The oath makes no religious reference.

The billboard says, “This oath was good enough for George Washington—Why not the Air Force Academy?” Chris Rodda of MRFF said its billboard displays the Valley Forge oath to counter propaganda that the Founding Fathers established a Christian nation.


As of November, MMRF was considering a lawsuit to remove “so help me God” from the oath.

Evolution in Texas Texts

In December, the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) reported, “This year’s sweeping win for science education in Texas now appears to be complete.”

“.…a special expert panel has given unanimous approval to the Pearson biology textbook whose adoption by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) last month had been tripped up by allegations that it contained ‘factual errors.’”

The textbook, named Biology, published by Pearson Education, is the most widely used biology text in the nation. Ide Trotter, a creationist, had objected to it because it presented evolution as scientific fact rather than as a theory in conflict with the Bible. It’s hard to understand why he slammed Biology, because the other textbooks also treated evolution as factual.

In November, SBOE approved all the other biology books, but it sent Biology to a panel of three experts to consider Trotter’s objection. SBOE picked the panelists. SBOE has several creationist members, including its chair. It had chosen many creationists for earlier review panels. However, it chose three respected biologists for this final examination.

OK to Oust Creationist Teacher


Mount Vernon, Ohio public school officials told creationist science teacher John Freshwater to clear Christian displays out of his classroom. Freshwater cleared out some, but not all, of the displays, and he brought in a few new items.

The district fired him, and he sued to get his job back. In November, four judges of the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Mt. Vernon school district could rightfully fire Freshwater for insubordination.

The judges chose not to decide whether Mt. Vernon could fire Freshwater because he taught creationism to his science classes and ignored orders to stop.

Dissenters Argue Like Creationists

Three dissenting judges adopted the creationist rationale. For instance, they used the argument from inadequate evidence.

A massive collection of evidence from many scientific specialties supports evolution. However, some creationists say no evidence supports evolution, and others say the evidence is too skimpy. No amount of evidence would convince them.

All the judges who considered Freshwater’s case commented on the overwhelming volume of evidence, but the Ohio Supreme Court’s dissenting judges thought the evidence of Freshwater’s insubordination too slight to justify his dismissal.

The evidence showed that for years Freshwater had told his students that their science textbooks wrongly taught evolution. He distributed handouts from creationist organizations to them. He told them to reject scientific conclusions inconsistent with the Bible. He filled his classroom with Christian displays.

From time to time over the years, parents complained. School officials told Freshwater to quit, but he did not quit. He continued to promote creationism and his version of Christianity, and the district ignored him until the next complaint.

Finally, one family threatened to sue the district. In response, the district hired a private investigator to learn if Freshwater’s activities advanced religion. The investigator found the copious evidence that led successive judges to approve Freshwater’s dismissal.

Quote-Mining, Teach the Controversy

Creationists search the scientific archive for quotations out of context to use as evidence that some respected scientists deny evolution. When the scientists find out how their work has been misrepresented, they try to set the record straight; but most creationists continue to use the misleading quotations. The corrections never catch up with the falsehoods. Opponents of creationism call the practice quote-mining.

A Religious Right organization, the Rutherford Institute, represented Freshwater before the Ohio Supreme Court. The dissenting judges probably got their mined quotations from the Rutherford lawyer’s brief.

At some point in the original hearings, Freshwater said he wasn’t a creationist. The dissenting judges used that statement as evidence that he didn’t teach creationism. The record showed that Freshwater often contradicted himself and the other evidence.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law requiring public schools to teach creationism in science classes, it added that schools could teach about scientific controversies. Creationists quote that passage to argue that schools can teach creationism, because evolution is controversial.

Friends of evolution reply that evolution is politically, but not scientifically, controversial. Therefore public schools cannot teach creationism in science classes. Numerous scientific societies have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing creationism.

The dissenting judges concluded that Freshwater had a right to teach creationism, against the district’s orders, because evolution was controversial. As evidence, they quoted the U.S. Supreme Court passage and a remark by a Mt. Vernon teacher that evolution was controversial. The dissenting judges should have known better. Briefs submitted to the court by scientific organizations explained that no scientific controversy existed.

The case is Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon.

Kansas Defends Science Standards

“Distinctions must be drawn to recognize not simply religious and anti-religious, but non-religious governmental activity as well,” said lawyers for the State of Kansas.

In December, Kansas asked a federal district court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state’s science standards.

The science standards teach that science looks only to natural causes for natural events.

The challengers, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE), said “Implementation…by Kansas will cause it to endorse a particular religious viewpoint.…with a primary effect that is not religiously neutral, and…will treat atheists and materialists as favored insiders and theists as disfavored outsiders.…”

The State’s lawyers responded that the “Complaint…asks the Court to turn Establishment Clause jurisprudence on its head by ruling that secular scientific principles are actually religious.”

They pointed out that the COPE lawsuit misrepresented the standards. For instance, COPE’s complaint said the standards caused children to consider “ultimate religious questions like what is the cause and nature of life and the universe—where do we come from?”

The State’s lawyers replied, “The…Standards simply do not ask this question. The phrase ‘where do we come from’ is not in them.…the Standards do not claim that science has all the answers to life’s deepest questions.”

On the contrary, the standards explicitly state that “not all questions can be answered by science.”

While MCPEARL members care most about COPE’s effort to bring miracles to science class, the Kansas lawyers offered the court a way to dismiss the lawsuit without discussing religion.

They declared that the Kansas Board of Education and Department of Education, which adopted the standards, lack the authority to implement them. Local school districts may take them or leave them. Therefore, the Board and Department have not and cannot injure COPE. Because COPE has suffered no injury, it has no standing to sue.


The suit is COPE v. Kansas.

Louisiana Holds Back Voucher Info


In January, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said, “The Department of Justice proposal reeks of federal government intrusion and proves the people in Washington running our federal government are more interested in skin color than they are in education.”

Jindal has been ranting quotably at the federal government since August.

Thirty-four of the state’s 64 school districts are still under federal desegregation orders from the 1975 case of Brumfield v. DoddThe court ordered Louisiana not to support private schools in ways that furthered racial segregation in those districts.

In August, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to enforce the court’s commands.  It sued to bar tuition vouchers for students attending public schools in the targeted districts, unless the state got prior approval from the court. The suit is U.S. v. Dodd.

The State of Louisiana and a child’s family both participate in deciding which voucher recipient goes to which school. Families who want vouchers submit a list of desired schools, in order of preference, to the state. The state matches the applicants with available seats.

In November, the DOJ modified its suit. It asked only to monitor the voucher awards.

It asked that the state notify the DOJ of its awards 45 days before it told the recipient families. It asked the state to report each child’s name, race, address, and the public school district he or she would leave. U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle approved. He gave the DOJ and the state 60 days to agree on a reporting process, one not “so arduous it scuttles the voucher program.”

At the end of December, the DOJ filed an expert report saying that voucher pupils are usually assigned to schools where their own race makes up more than 90% of the student body.

In early January, well before the 60 days had passed, the parties had filed separate, incompatible proposals.

The DOJ asked for the 45 day notice and the chance to block school assignments that increased segregation. It wanted the state each autumn to send the DOJ final enrollment counts and analyses of the vouchers’ impact on racial balance in public and private schools.

Louisiana’s lawyers asked Judge Lemelle to close the case of Brumfield v. Dodd, and let the state fund private schools as it chose.

In case he refused, they asked him to reject entirely the DOJ’s plan to monitor the voucher awards. If he wouldn’t do that, they asked his permission to supply information to the DOJ only after the school year had begun. If the judge agreed, the DOJ could not prevent school assignments that promoted segregation.

Highly Critical Report

In December, Louisiana Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera slammed the voucher program, because it didn’t make participating private schools spend public money properly or educate their voucher students.

Purpera had a hard time getting information. Auditors could follow the tax-raised funds in only three of 118 schools, because the others did not record their voucher income separately. Of those three, one overcharged the state by more than $300,000.

Five schools sought vouchers for youngsters whose families earned too much for the program. Four more schools didn’t know their voucher students’ family incomes. Ten schools didn’t have correct home addresses for pupils.

The private schools must give voucher recipients, but not other children, the same tests as public school students. If the state grades private schools by those scores, as it grades public schools, more than 40% of voucher students attend schools with grades of D or F.

Texas Charter Schools Falsify Evolution

The last time the Texas Board of Education picked science standards, the board’s creationist majority added this. “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations…, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations.…”

The Responsive Education Solutions charter school system, enrolling more than 17,000 children mostly in Texas, but some in Arkansas and Indiana, uses that language to falsify evolution.

In January, the online magazine, Slate, printed a powerful article by Zack Kopplin about Responsive Ed.

Kopplin reports that Responsive Ed’s biology workbooks “both overtly and underhandedly discredit evidence-based science and allow creationism into public-school classrooms.” Kopplin lists a series of false or misleading workbook statements.

The books say the fossil record is “uncertain,” that “Some scientists…question the validity of conclusions concerning the age of the earth,” and that evolution can’t be tested. They say that evolution competes with other scientific theories, and that it is controversial among scientists.

In quick response to Kopplin’s article, the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) called for the Texas education commissioner to investigate Responsive Ed.

TFN led the battle against creationist science standards and against demands to weaken coverage of evolution in Texas textbooks.

The Texas Education Agency (TEA)  made this reply.

“Responsive Ed is voluntarily conducting its own internal review. The Texas Education Agency is also independently reviewing the materials to determine that the state curriculum is being covered.…complaints…regarding instruction at the campus level are a local matter in Texas to be addressed by…boards of local education agencies.”

Responsive Ed’s Chief Executive Officer, Chuck Cook, posted an answer to the Kopplin article. His defense confirms Kopplin’s report.

Here are Cook’s own quotations from the Responsive Ed workbook.

“Evolution by natural selection.…gave nonreligious scientists a way to explain the diversity of life.”

“In recent years, two schools of thought —creationism and evolution—have been at conflict in schools, universities, and scientific circles.”

“For many, supernatural creation…is a more plausible explanation.”

Kopplin’s article prompted the Indiana Charter School Board and the Indianapolis mayor’s charter school office to review Responsive Ed’s curriculum.

The Arkansas Times has tried to get state officials to take action. At the time this article was written, they had brushed off its advice.


If you want to read Kopplin’s article, you can google Zack Kopplin Slate. The article is headed, Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism.