This from the ACLU:
In a letter released this week, the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that Wisconsin must ensure that students with disabilities who seek to attend or are currently enrolled in private schools through the state's taxpayer-funded voucher program "do not encounter discrimination on the basis of their disabilities."
The DOJ letter was prompted by a 2011 complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Wisconsin, and Disability Rights Wisconsin that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"The state cannot, by delegating the education function to private voucher schools, place students beyond the reach of the federal laws that require Wisconsin to eliminate disability discrimination in its administration of public programs," DOJ officials wrote in the letter to Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Superintendent Tony Evers.
In the letter, the DOJ firmly establishes that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to voucher programs, with potentially far-reaching impact across the country. Twenty states and the District of Columbia currently offer taxpayer-funded voucher programs or tax credits permitting students to use public funds for private school education...
8 comments:
I scares me that I send a general trend occuring.
-Government expanding power beyond historic (and probably constitutional)parameters.
-Government spending more money than it has
-Citzens losing confidence in government and pursue legal avenues of alternative non governmental services in private sector
-Government seeks to impose power on private sector actions being pursued by citizens due to inferior governmental in comporable services.
Some how the federal government has strayed down a path which basically seems allow it to justify its control over any private organization.
Do we really want a government telling medical centers and physicians founded and run by religious groups they must abide by federal service guideline which run counter to their faith beliefs? Private schools being told who they can and can't admit? Even T-shirt vendors being mandated to serve customers according to governmental expectations instead of owner's operational parameters.
Our leaders have screwed up governmental services beyond repair and now they want to start imposing their will well beyound any governmental responsibility so as to infringe on common freedoms of those who seek and provide serves beyound those provided by the government.
I sometimes wonder if American's as a whole weren't so complacent, expant of big brother government to take care of their needs and uneducated about the bill of rights and actual limits which government must function, that we would be on the verge of another civil war.
Basically, where we are now is the federal justification that if you are a citizen who pays taxes, then that justifies their involvement in any endeavor for which you are engaged. So it would seem that one must either function "off the grid" economically and most likely do so illegaly as defined by government or you have to allow our leaders to engage their premises, perspectives and policies in your everyday lives.
Its just a sad state of affairs anymore and obviously isn't getting any better.
“Government expanding power beyond historic (and probably constitutional) parameters.”
Prior to the Progressive Era the weak central government was no match for private industrial titans who screwed over workers, the environment, and each other. The increase in federal authority was in response to that, and the fact that only certain citizens enjoyed the full rights of citizenship as guaranteed by the constitution.
“Government spending more money than it has.”
I wouldn’t own a home if it weren’t for a mortgage. Chances are, you wouldn’t either. America leveraged debt to build a great nation. It does not operate the same as a household budget. The feds did betray us when, during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations, government regulation of the financial industry open the doors to abuse. Since 2008, when all of the Harvard-educated financial geniuses executed their swaps and collateralized debt obligations, and took down the market, real estate and insurance industries with them – mostly legal, mind you – it took the federal government to prevent the total collapse of the economy.
“Citzens losing confidence in government and pursue legal avenues of alternative non governmental services in private sector.”
If that’s what it is, I can certainly understand why citizens might lose faith in our elected representatives. Congress deserves its pitiful approval ratings. Folks are free to explore private business, but if they are going to accept public money, they need to play by public rules, such as guaranteeing non-discrimination.
“Government seeks to impose power on private sector actions being pursued by citizens due to inferior governmental in comporable services.”
…if those actions would deny the full rights of citizenship to some.
Some how the federal government has strayed down a path which basically seems allow it to justify its control over any private organization.
I agree that government intervention must be justified.
“Do we really want a government telling medical centers and physicians founded and run by religious groups they must abide by federal service guideline which run counter to their faith beliefs?”
Only if those “private” entities operate on public funds and do not abridge any citizen’s rights.
“Private schools being told who they can and can't admit?”
Only if they rely on public funds.
“Even T-shirt vendors being mandated to serve customers according to governmental expectations instead of owner's operational parameters.“
If this is a reference to Hands-On Originals, then I’d say they are free to operate under any policies they want. Likewise, public institutions are free to choose with whom they do business. If that means that they do not choose to do business with businesses that choose to discriminate against some of the students, then so be it. It’s a free market. (At least, theoretically.)
“Our leaders have screwed up governmental services beyond repair and now they want to start imposing their will well beyound any governmental responsibility so as to infringe on common freedoms of those who seek and provide serves beyound those provided by the government.”
Expanding governmental services (at least in the schools) began in the mid 60’s, when the South still refused to desegregate the schools a full decade after Brown v Bd of Ed. They were looking to expand freedoms for all, but that meant that they got in the way of some who were trying to prevent freedoms for some. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
“I sometimes wonder if American's as a whole weren't so complacent, expant of big brother government to take care of their needs and uneducated about the bill of rights and actual limits which government must function, that we would be on the verge of another civil war.”
I did find it bothersome that some southern states (TX) were considering supremacy laws – declaring that state law superseded constitutional guarantees. We haven’t seen that since the Civil War.
“Basically, where we are now is the federal justification that if you are a citizen who pays taxes, then that justifies their involvement in any endeavor for which you are engaged. So it would seem that one must either function "off the grid" economically and most likely do so illegaly as defined by government or you have to allow our leaders to engage their premises, perspectives and policies in your everyday lives.”
It’s not that one pays taxes. It’s that every citizen deserves the full rights of citizenship and all of the liberty that implies. If someone wants to open a private school on private money, they can do pretty much what they want.
“Its just a sad state of affairs anymore and obviously isn't getting any better.”
If you say so, but it just sounds like whining to me.
Not whinning and historical short comings don't justify current actions which are not in line with existing realities. We're not talking fugitive slaves laws or women's right to own property.
Surely you aren't going to support our federal government's current excallating debt load as being snynomyous with a house mortagage. I have an agreement with my bank to pay a certain amount month (disciplined and controlled) as well as a responsibility to insure and maintain (required expectations)that structure. THat agreement was entered into based upon my ability to pay back that money. If I stop paying I break that promise and lose the house as well as probably wreck my short term ability to gain credit else where. Feds long ago lost their discipline and control of predesssors from the past which you invoke. Equally, they have not only taken on but even invented expectations which they can not support or sustain with current resources. At present long term vision of current politicians doesn't even go to the next election but instead runs situationally based upon issues of the moment. These folks in Washington couldn't make a tough economic decision if they had to.
I agree that the comments coming out of TX regarding Fed law superseding state law (and even our own state lately about firearms) illstrates how little both the complacent and activities understand about federalism. With that said, one must ask why citizens would feel this way and why do they have such low approval of our government's leaders (and their performance)? If I may be so bold as to invoke a little history myself, seems like a bunch of colonials got fed up with a government government which it felt was not representing its citizens' will, held a condescending tone toward its citizen's petetions and sought to expand its control of citizen's economic and personal rights. Seems like one of their red headed rabble rousers who went on to go to lead our country even said it was the right and obligation of citizens of a free state to challenge (dare I say rebel) against a state which was not serving the interests of its citizens.
Now I am not saying that the government is attempting to counter the people's will nor am I endoring revolution at this point. However, the whole can not be lead by the few if their is no faith. Our government has expanded its role beyond its ability to govern all elements which it has come to interpret as under its perview. Would anyone champion the position that our current leaders in the executive, federal and judicial seem to be functioning far below need or expectation?
As for religious medical facilities, these places were filling in gaps when state, locals and feds weren't providing needed care to the citizens. Out of the blue we create a new national health care and some how religious beliefs which these institutions have abided by for years in successfully running their hospitals are supperceeded by government's protection of individual rights? This isn't something as simple as saying, "well just don't take medicare patients" (actually that is what is probably going to happen anyway if you look at the significant cuts in eldery care funding in new federal health care). The game is slanted toward the fed when it comes to medical care and it scares me to death to think how eager business are going to be to get out from under the rising costs of private health care and dump most of their employess on to federal health care. I am pretty sure that government has a vested interest in assisting in the help of its citizens though not a specifically defined right or expectation. But how does than newly defined and expanded government role trump religious freedom and beliefs of institutions which up until a couple of years ago functioned just fine serving citizens?
(cont.) What worries me is the growing expansion of the federal government's means of interpreting its right to control private citizens. This criteria of "using public funds" is basically a blank check in terms of intepretation. Personally, I believe is moving toward expanding upon your rather narrow interpretation of getting a check from Uncle Sam to provide a service or product.
Private school transportation uses public roads. Private schools use public utilities. Private schools, like most private entities are already controlled by government in some way by local health codes, contruction regulations, etc. Private entities enjoy the same police protection as the courthouse or other public venue. Heck if you wanted to really press it out even further, you could even interpret everyone's house as a "private" intidy. I am not saying that is bad or shouldn't be in place but I am just wondering how one draws the line between private and public. Surely it isn't just as simple is if the government sends you a check. If that's the case then why don't we impose service requirements on those who receive unemployment checks from the government - seem as justifyable?
Seems like a government which hold's prisoners in a military camp for over a decade without being tried under blanket justification of a war on terrorism and takes a year to decide if it will send humaitarian aid to a group of citizens being terrorized by their own government might have a problem individual rights of its own citizens.
I understand what this means in terms of services provided to students who are in a private school but what about admissions? It has always been my understanding that most private school's could select who they wishted to attend. So would they be required to admit any student who applied with special needs if they are accepting vouchers?
Since we don't have these in KY (yet) just wondering how you enforce this in terms of the admissions gate. Say your school requires an academic competency test where the student has to perform at X level in order to be admitted. Would that admission requirement now be discriminatory for kids who have learning disabilities which inhibit performance at the school's academic admission performance level.
Be interesting to see how this would impact some charter schools that appear to cherry pick or frame their charters so as to exclude special education students based upon school operational characteristics or admission standards.
Historical shortcomings may not justify responses so much as they necessitate them.
I too am concerned with the debt to GDP ratio, and was actually arguing that the federal economy is exponentially more complex than a household budget. I am not an expert in macroeconomics or finance and will not pretend to have answers for what must occur at this juncture, but I am persuaded by the argument that the best way to reduce debt is through productivity and that sometimes calls for increased short-term debt. It was not so long ago that we had a budget surplus. But then we put two wars and a pharmacy bill on the nation’s credit card. Add the financial collapse on top of that…and here we are.
It was not just the feds who lost control of themselves, lots of private business folks did too, but we are in complete agreement about the inability of Congress to act beyond their own short-term interests.
Jefferson’s comments were clearly aimed at the British monarchy and the US founders did create strong local government/weak federal government in response. It stayed that way for years and whether or not a citizen received his constitutional guarantees was a matter to be resolved by local gentlemen, which meant that many citizens were denied.
Faith-based healthcare facilities sprung up for a host of reasons – not just one. Some exist to serve the privileged and accept very few or no Medicaid patients. Others certainly serve the poor. But if one’s interest is in serving a greater portion of the population, well, that is perhaps the one thing Obamacare is going to do.
I’m not sure what is driving rising medical costs but profits for the richest among us is approaching all-time highs.
Somebody’s doing alright, but it doesn’t seem to be the folks in the middle or at the bottom. I am similarly unsure of just what the government’s obligation to its citizen’s healthcare should be. Morally it’s hard to argue against. But then the will of the people must exist to support that system.
Clearly government must promote the general welfare and everybody is going to ride on the same roads. They were built to promote the economy, however, not so that government could take over citizens. If I felt that was actually happening I’m sure I would feel differently.
Entanglements between the public and the private exist all the time and I don’t know how to sort them all out. But I disagree with Rand Paul’s claim that a private business ought to be able to discriminate against persons on the basis of race because it’s not the government’s business whatever a private business does. That gets us nowhere good.
I have no answers for Gitmo.
Despite all of the blame President Obama catches, too frequently I can’t distinguish between his policies and those of his predecessor. You can include his education policies in that list.
As for the present case, the NY court said pretty much the same thing that the Kentucky Supreme Court said in the Rose case. The state can’t use vouchers to avoid doing what the constitution requires – in this case, non-discrimination against persons with disabilities.
But your admissions question is interesting and I’m not sure I know how that would work out. I don’t believe a private school would necessarily be required to support any forms of disability their students might present. If Sayre or the Lexington School (and I’m just spitballin’ here) receive no public funds, I’m fairly sure they can set whatever admission criteria they wanted. Academic achievement level is not a constitutionally protected class so I doubt admissions tests would be ruled out. But if it were found that among those who met the admissions requirements and could pay the tuition, non-whites were excluded, then I suspect there would be a problem, because race is protected.
As for vouchers, or charters - In Rose, the court said that the General Assembly is totally in charge of the schools and it cannot shed its responsibilities to provide an adequate education in every public school (schools funded with public money) throughout the state because it delegated the responsibility to do so. If Boards of Education are ineffective; if the Department of Education is ineffective; if all this testing is ineffective…the only group that can fix the system is the General Assembly.
Thanks for the comments.
Post a Comment