Louisiana judge rules against Jindal’s voucher program, a.k.a. better opportunities for children

posted at 3:31 pm on December 3, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Since his election, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has championed the cause of education reform by permitting more private-sector competition into the school system — the ire of the teachers’ unions be darned. One of his signature achievements, a private-school tuition voucher program that allows low-income children (those from families with a household income less than 250% of the federal poverty line) stuck in underperforming public schools (those graded a “C” or worse by the state) to instead attend a private school of their choice, was ruled unconstitutional by a state judge on Friday.

Judge Tim Kelley sided with arguments presented by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

More than 4,900 students are enrolled in 117 private schools with taxpayer dollars, in one of the largest voucher programs in the nation.

The judge said the method the Jindal administration, state education leaders and lawmakers used to pay for the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions governing the annual education funding formula, called the Minimum Foundation Program or MFP.

In other words, why no, the teachers’ unions and big-government progressives wouldn’t like it if they were actually forced to compete and compare results with private institutions. Gov. Jindal was not pleased by the ruling, pledging to appeal the decision:

“Today’s ruling is wrong headed and a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education.   That opportunity is a chance that every child deserves and we will continue the fight to give it to them. The opinion sadly ignores the rights of families who do not have the means necessary to escape failing schools. On behalf of the citizens that cast their votes for reform, the parents who want more choices, and the kids who deserve a chance, we will appeal today’s decision, and I’m confident we will prevail. This ruling changes nothing for the students currently in the program. All along, we expected this to be decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court.”

Good thing too, because if the ruling stands, eventually that many of the 5000-odd kids who have so far made use of the new program may have to be yanked out of their new schools and placed back into the failing public schools from whence they came. The WSJ gets it right:

Louisiana Judge Timothy Kelley sure is a fast writer. Only hours after the end of a two-day trial, the Balzac of the judiciary rolled out a 39-page opinion striking down the state’s pioneering voucher program as unconstitutional. Could it be that he knew how he was going to rule before the trial?In other words, better that all students fail together, rather than let parents take the money that is supposed to go to public education and try to get their child actually educated. This is the kind of perverse egalitarianism promoted by the teachers unions that brought the lawsuit. No student can ever escape their clutches, lest parents discover that maybe there’s a better way.

… Where are the liberals who claim to favor equal opportunity?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How’s it look at the State Supreme Court level, chances good to overturn?

reddevil on December 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM

…government doesn’t want competition!

KOOLAID2 on December 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM

They know the score here. Half a century of public school monopoly allowed the Left to produce a generation of functional illiterates indoctrinated in all the vapid bromides of Progressivism. The end result was Barack Obama’s coronation and more recent reaffirmation.

The only way we’ll ever get this country back is to get the culture back, and public schools are a crucial component.

Alas…

SAMinVA on December 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I don’t have children, but what the teachers union thugs and their power with the courts did here is beyond horrible! I feel so sorry for parents who have no choice but to get in the union thugs system for their children.

I hope Jindal will appeal! Good luck, you will need it I fear.
L

letget on December 3, 2012 at 3:37 PM

These are perverse times. The public school system is not entitled to that money…if it is to be spent on the child, why not have the child use it to attend a better school? The public schools could choose to up their game and not stand in the way of other common sense measures, but instead they seek to block these kids from doing any better for themselves. And it’s the Left that cares about our children? Give me a break.

changer1701 on December 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Children are a nuisance to the teachers union…not to teachers, but to the union.

right2bright on December 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM

The judge said the method the Jindal administration, state education leaders and lawmakers used to pay for the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions governing the annual education funding formula, called the Minimum Foundation Program or MFP.

“The MFP was set up for students attending public elementary and secondary schools and was never meant to be diverted to private educational providers,” Kelley wrote in a 39-page ruling.

Perhaps Jindal & co. should have obeyed the their own state constitution then? This seems more like knowing your own law is going to go down in flames put still pushing it through for political cred.

mythicknight on December 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Where are the liberals who claim to favor equal opportunity?

Don’t they mean equal outcome?

Rufus on December 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM

If you could bother yourself to check locally, you might find this…

http://thehayride.com/2012/11/sadow-kelleys-ruling-is-actually-pretty-good-for-school-reform/

The ruling is not as bad as it seems to the uninformed like Erika.

Kermit on December 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Liberals LOVE to have DUMB kids, cause if they go to a private school, they might learn critical thinking skills, which would make them conservative and vote for the Republican party.

BroncosRock on December 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I see why Jindal knocked Romney’s gifts comments. Jindal’s a Dem Lite who just wants the GOP to offer larger gifts. We’re never going to out-Santa Claus the Democrat Party.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

What this is really all about

tom on December 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Perhaps Jindal & co. should have obeyed the their own state constitution then? This seems more like knowing your own law is going to go down in flames put still pushing it through for political cred.

mythicknight on December 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Maybe, but I wouldn’t accept that as the truth simply because one judge said so. I haven’t read the decision or the LA Constitution, so don’t know the answer, but this would hardly be the first time that a judge bastardized a constitution for his philosophical outcome preference – and that process tends to happen much, much more on the left than the right (i.e., liberal judges are much, much more willing to flagrantly ignore what a constitution actually says).

Monkeytoe on December 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Where are the liberals who claim to favor equal opportunity?

They do favor equal opportunity. The equality of everyone having the opportunity to attend the public school system. Whether that system provides a good education or not is irrelevant. It’s all about “sameness,” not quality.

That having been said, I do have an issue with Jindal’s voucher program. Why is it only available to “low income” students? Regardless of your income level, everyone is paying taxes to support the education of their children. If the state is going to take money under the guise of providing an education, and then admit the education at a particular school is horrible, why should those of more means not be eligible for the voucher?

“Yeah, we know your school sucks, and we know we taxed you once already to pay for it, but you’re rich, so suck it up and pay on your own.” Sounds a lot like Obamanomics.

Shump on December 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Thirty-nine pages in a few hours? I don’t think Stephen King could do that many in the same amount of time as this judge is claimed to have taken.

The schools seem to exist only for teachers and their unions. I bet that if private schools were required to unionize the teaching staff, the case never would have come to court.

How many of those poorer children are minorities? To heck with race–what about elevating people from poverty? If one of these children grows to land a good job through a good education, he or she can help the family as a whole, too.

I guess liberals can sleep well tonight, knowing they shattered the dreams of many poor children and their parents who want better for them, to make sure Republicans know who holds the real power in this country.

Liam on December 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Another day, another corrupt judge.

22044 on December 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The root of the problem, are the teacher’s unions themselves.

They need to be dismantled and outlawed in every state.

Rebar on December 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

tom on December 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Money>children? Shocker!

Christien on December 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I understand that the Luoisians Teachers Union’s phys-ed division is considering a rule that faster runners in track meets be required to wear leg weights.

IndieDogg on December 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

If I had school aged children I would be embracing home schooling. We can’t keep turning out stupid at this rate.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Why is it only available to “low income” students? Regardless of your income level, everyone is paying taxes to support the education of their children.

Shump on December 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

How can you pander for minority votes if you offer the same deal to everybody?

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I understand that the Luoisians Teachers Union’s phys-ed division is considering a rule that faster runners in track meets be required to wear leg weights.

IndieDogg on December 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

That might cause injuries. A better idea would be having multiple finish lines, so every runner gets to break a ribbon.

Liam on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Ahhh voucher programs, where tax dollars pay for creationism in bio class. No thanks.

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I live here. We do not have a union problem and many of us see vouchers undermining those Parishes that have good educational systems. Put it up for local option.

jcampbell on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I am so saddened by this move. All those poor children will never find out that The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good.

lester on December 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Jindal could always take Obama’s approach…issue an executive order, ignore the judge and dare him to try and enforce his ruling. Or, he could champion impeachment of the liberal scum every single day while he’s in office. It’s past time for any politician to challenge a tyrannical ruling by a crooked judge.

cajunpatriot on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Liberals LOVE to have DUMB kids, cause if they go to a private school, they might learn critical thinking skills, which would make them conservative and vote for the Republican party.

BroncosRock on December 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Education is a mess in this country.

I sent kids to prep schools at $50K or so a year and they tended to be lefty because most of the people studying education at colleges are brainwashed that way.

The real problem is that the NEA hasn’t managed to organize the private schools, yet, so there are no union dues for campaign contributions.

Maybe I am missing something as I haven’t read the ruling but Erika seems to have written this up well, considering the weird decision.

IlikedAUH2O on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Liberals LOVE to have DUMB kids, cause if they go to a private school, they might learn critical thinking skills, which would make them conservative and vote for the Republican party.

BroncosRock on December 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Which is why rich northeastern liberals who send their kids to private schools with names like Fordham, Regis, Loyola, Sacred Heart vote republican, right?

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Can’t have the tax slaves choosing how to spend the taxes they paid. If you don’t want to send your kids to Starlin High then you have to pay for it yourself, and even then the odds are better than %50 they still get an indoctrinator instead of an instructor.

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

That might cause injuries. A better idea would be having multiple finish lines, so every runner gets to break a ribbon.

Liam on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Heh! Was the movie “The Matrix” really a movie, or are we living it?

NapaConservative on December 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

I thought that was the goal.

Only hours after the end of a two-day trial, the Balzac of the judiciary rolled out a 39-page opinion striking down the state’s pioneering voucher program as unconstitutional. Could it be that he knew how he was going to rule before the trial?

Well, he probably had a great deal of assistance from the teachers union. NEA members were probably writing ‘his’ opinion before proceedings commenced.

… Where are the liberals who claim to favor equal opportunity?

You’ll find them one planet Mungo operating all the unicorn farms. Gotta them … ahem… minorities down there on the plantation, votin’ Demoncrap

When my daughter started school, we did not want her graduating at age 17, as Tracy Ullman once said, as dumb as a mud-flap. We made tremendous sacrifices and kept her in a private school. It wasn’t cheap, neither was it easy. But thank G_D we did it. She was well educated, not thoroughly indoctrinated. We’ve never been sorry.

oldleprechaun on December 3, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Which is why rich northeastern liberals who send their kids to private schools with names like Fordham, Regis, Loyola, Sacred Heart vote republican, right?

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

You don’t get how this game is played Ernie. The %1 pay the bottom %50 for their votes, so they can pillage the middle %49. It’s not even necessarily a Democrat or Republican thing. There are complicit politicians in both parties.

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Ahhh voucher programs, where tax dollars pay for creationism in bio class. No thanks.

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Yes it’s sooooo much better to have my 1st grader writing a paper that says she’s ashamed to be white./
GTH.

MontanaMmmm on December 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Which is why rich northeastern liberals who send their kids to private schools with names like Fordham, Regis, Loyola, Sacred Heart vote republican, right?

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Why do rich northeastern liberals send their kids to private schools, and then advocate for (and try politically to make it as difficult as possible for poorer children to escape) demonstrably sh*tty public schools? Particularly in the inner cities of America?

Isn’t that kind of the embodiment of ‘do what we say and not what we do?’ Isn’t that the behavior of ‘the 1%?’

Don’t you have a problem with that?

Good Lt on December 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Yes it’s sooooo much better to have my 1st grader writing a paper that says she’s ashamed to be white./
GTH.

MontanaMmmm on December 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

They’re both equally atrocious.

One is a perversion of history, and the other is a bastardization of science.

Good Lt on December 3, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I know nothing about this case, but my state of AZ has a tax credit program for private school tuition that has stood up to ACLU challenges. I was presuming this LA bill was modeled after it, but apparently it may violate the LA constitution.

I doubt this will go unchallenged and hopefully school choice will win in the end.

JannyMae on December 3, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I’m curious as to what that particular constitutional provision says. I do think that school choice and vouchers should be at the very top of the GOP agenda. First of all, it pits poor, minority children against affluent, elitist teacher’s unions: definitely good “optics” for a Party that needs to broaden its demographic appeal. Second, I would not be at all surprised to learn that even the most under-resourced private schools do a better job, given that they are more likely to actually want to teach the kids something useful, as opposed to indoctrinating them into liberalism, not to mention the ridiculous union benefits and work rules and protections. But most importantly, the stranglehold that liberals have over the public school system is a big part of why sixty and seventy percent of young people vote Democrat. The field is going to be forever stacked against conservatives and the GOP as long as we give liberals thousands of hours to inculcate the youth with their values before they even get out of high school.

Progressive Heretic on December 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Good Lt on December 3, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You too.

MontanaMmmm on December 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

from whence they came

This is redundant. The word “whence” means “from where”, so you’re saying

from from where they came

-Grammar Nazi

The Monster on December 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I see why Jindal knocked Romney’s gifts comments. Jindal’s a Dem Lite who just wants the GOP to offer larger gifts. We’re never going to out-Santa Claus the Democrat Party.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Yes, because Dems are well-known for embracing voucher programs. Or something.

I live here. We do not have a union problem and many of us see vouchers undermining those Parishes that have good educational systems. Put it up for local option.

jcampbell on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

There’s always a union problem. Plus, how is it undermining anything?

changer1701 on December 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Ahhh voucher programs, where tax dollars pay for creationism in bio class. No thanks.

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Typical case of tunnel vision from a classic cookie-cutter liberal.

Not all private schools are run by churches. I personally subscribe to the Creationist view but have no problem at all with public schools teaching Evolution. Liberals are the ones having issues with the whole matter, not most of us.

Lemme guess–you got your ‘education’ at a big-city public school.

Pffft!

Liam on December 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM

It’s time to start ignoring these idiots. They are not our masters, they are our servants.

First they get the hand, then the finger. If they haven’t learned their place by then they can always get the fist.

Mr Snuggle Bunny on December 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Union’s right to choose trumps a mother’s right to choose, as least for a child’s education

STL_Vet on December 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Why do rich northeastern liberals send their kids to private schools, and then advocate for (and try politically to make it as difficult as possible for poorer children to escape) demonstrably sh*tty public schools? Particularly in the inner cities of America?

Isn’t that kind of the embodiment of ‘do what we say and not what we do?’ Isn’t that the behavior of ‘the 1%?’

Don’t you have a problem with that?

Good Lt on December 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I’ve often wondered how people who live conservative lives, and raise their children to live conservative lives end up consistently voting Democrat. Many of my family members exhibit this odd behavior. It goes back to control of the culture. You make movies portraying conservatives as evil and people won’t want to be identified as one, even when they live their lives as one. It’s kind of like what happened to the station wagon. We’ve been station wagoned. hehe

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I am so saddened by this move. All those poor children will never find out that The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good.

lester on December 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I can find crazy teachers brainwashing students in the US to worship President Obama. This is on video tape. That kind of activity is more dangerous that a goofy, lying take on evolution since the Loch Ness monster is not currently destroying the western world.

More importantly, your article mentioned “private” schools in the UK which probably could not be found if someone looked.

If those things upset you, please post here again as I can find crazy publications going the other way. Then you can troll on both sides with nonsense.

IlikedAUH2O on December 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Perhaps Jindal & co. should have obeyed the their own state constitution then?

mythicknight on December 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

One cannot account for every emanation from every penumbra. By the timing of it, the robed schmuck had the verdict ready before the trial started.

Archivarix on December 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I live here. We do not have a union problem and many of us see vouchers undermining those Parishes that have good educational systems. Put it up for local option.

jcampbell on December 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Why would it undermine those parishes that have “good” educational systems. People wouldn’t be trying to flee them and thus they would have stable average daily attendance for funding purposes. Most state voucher systems only allow them for poorly performing schools. According to the article that is how the Louisiana system is designed. You might want to think a little more deeply about your argument.

chemman on December 3, 2012 at 4:12 PM

You don’t get how this game is played Ernie. The %1 pay the bottom %50 for their votes, so they can pillage the middle %49. It’s not even necessarily a Democrat or Republican thing. There are complicit politicians in both parties.

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Starve the Looters!!!

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I understand that the Luoisians Teachers Union’s phys-ed division is considering a rule that faster runners in track meets be required to wear leg weights.

IndieDogg on December 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

It seems Kurt Vonnegut was a visionary

Ditkaca on December 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Which is why rich northeastern liberals who send their kids to private schools with names like Fordham, Regis, Loyola, Sacred Heart vote republican, right?

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I love how stupid you are and hurt your own cause while thinking you’re making a point against conservatives. Yes, rich white liberals love to send their privileged brats to private schools while forcing those less fortunate to languish in a failing public school. Thanks for pointing that out.

Daemonocracy on December 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM

The obvious next step would be to get a constitutional amendment. And while I was doing that… I’d outlaw public unions altogether throughout the state. A labor union negotiates for a share of a business’s profits. But governments don’t have profits. They are supported by taxpayers. And in the case of government workers, there is no fair arbitration because the taxpayers aren’t truly represented.

Get rid of the public unions and we get rid of the problem.

Murf76 on December 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The operative question is who is actually raising the children. If children from 5 to 18/23 years of age speed most of their waking hours in school and then hanging out with their peers from schools. It is the schools and peers who are raising the children. Is it any wonder that conservative parents end up with liberal children.

chemman on December 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Bobby should just take a page from Barry, and ignore the decision. Who’s gonna enforce your ruling Judge Kelly?

Iblis on December 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM

There’s always a union problem. Plus, how is it undermining anything?

changer1701 on December 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM

It undermines the fiscal planning that every Parish school district has to do. We are a hard core RTW state – there is no union problem – at least in St. Tammany Parish.

jcampbell on December 3, 2012 at 4:20 PM

The operative question is who is actually raising the children. If children from 5 to 18/23 years of age speed most of their waking hours in school and then hanging out with their peers from schools. It is the schools and peers who are raising the children. Is it any wonder that conservative parents end up with liberal children.

chemman on December 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

No that’s not what I mean. The kids turn out fine and live their lives conservatively but still tend to vote Democrat. I think some of it is a misguided type of family loyalty, but there is a stigma attached to be conservative. It’s evil, or just not cool. It’s definitely a cultural issue.

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 4:20 PM

…Is it any wonder that conservative parents end up with liberal children.

chemman on December 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I would put some of that down to how liberal ‘values’ and ’causes’ change when the breeze is too stiff. You can’t legally own a bald eagle feather even if it fell from the bird in flight while it dive bombed you with a little splash. But liberals and government remain silent about those windmills.

With the way libs operate, it’s no wonder children are always confused about what is right/sane and what is so off the wall that it defies comprehension.

Liam on December 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Shump on December 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

This is spot on. I surely don’t pay less in taxes because I send my son to private school. I’m still paying my share for the horrible public school system in addition to private school tuition.

This is very reminiscent of Bush’s No Child Left Behind disaster.

MustLoveBlogs on December 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I’ve often wondered how people who live conservative lives, and raise their children to live conservative lives end up consistently voting Democrat. Many of my family members exhibit this odd behavior. It goes back to control of the culture. You make movies portraying conservatives as evil and people won’t want to be identified as one, even when they live their lives as one. It’s kind of like what happened to the station wagon. We’ve been station wagoned. hehe

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

It is for this reason that home schooling is growing so fast, and is becoming more main stream. Ten years ago I pretty much only saw home-schooling among parents with an agenda to pass along to their kids. Not so any longer. Home-school parents are just are tired of the liberal junk in the public school system and think they can do better by teaming together. I have not taken this plunge, but know a number of parents that have, and are doing pretty well with it. One of my home-schooling friends has a PhD in microbiology, and is doing research at a well regarded university, so this isn’t just for idiots.

STL_Vet on December 3, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Yes, because Dems are well-known for embracing voucher programs. Or something.

Some Dems support gifts like vouchers , as long as they’re only offered to “low income” students like the Jindal plan. See Cory Booker, Michelle Rhee, etc. Of course, they would change their tune in a heartbeat if the vouchers were offered to everyone.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I am so saddened by this move. All those poor children will never find out that The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good.

lester on December 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Man made global climate change, The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara, abortions without parent’s consent, MEChA, School Lunch Program, My Two Dads, Old White Racist Founding Fathers…

… Yeah, pure paradise.

Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2012 at 4:28 PM

…Where are the liberals who claim to favor equal opportunity?

And choice? Aren’t they all pro-choice?

I’m school pro-choice. I’m pro-choice a lot of things, except being able to kill your baby just because it isn’t born yet.

osborn4 on December 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM

As bad as it sounds, this is probably a good thing for the private schools as many of the voucher students can have an extremely negative impact on the private schools. Of course the private schools can refuse to participate in the voucher program but it can be very difficult for the private school administrators to pass up those funds.

Deano1952 on December 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM

My argument is put it up for local option – so we can do basic fiscal planning. I live Southeast Louisiana and we are quite happy with our school system. We are also quite conservative in our voting – over 70% Romney in St. Tammany.

Why would it undermine those parishes that have “good” educational systems. People wouldn’t be trying to flee them and thus they would have stable average daily attendance for funding purposes. Most state voucher systems only allow them for poorly performing schools. According to the article that is how the Louisiana system is designed. You might want to think a little more deeply about your argument.

chemman on December 3, 2012 at 4:12 PM

jcampbell on December 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I am so saddened by this move. All those poor children will never find out that The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good.

lester

The ignorance displayed on that site is downright scary. I’m guessing you’re a regular there.

xblade on December 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM

SHARED MISERY:

Liberalism’s idea of “equality” for a one-legged man is a scheme which cuts off every able-bodied person’s leg, and fails to provide any crutches or wheelchairs to anybody.

Similarly, Liberalism in education is a scheme where everyone is actively prevented from learning.

landlines on December 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM

jcampbell on December 3, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You’re doing it wrong.

Christien on December 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I am so saddened by this move.

lester

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Jindal needs not just to appeal it, but also return fire and bust up the teachers’ union in LA.

The fight over public education is a fight for the soul of the country. But so far, only one side has been fighting.

petefrt on December 3, 2012 at 4:57 PM

This is the kind of decision where a sitting governor would be wise to say something like, “Mr Kelley has issued his ruling. I invite him to enforce it. However, as the Governor of the state, and the head of the executive branch of the state, I will instead continue to implement the will of the voters as constitutionally established when the legislature approved this bill.”

Judicial legislation won’t stop as long as people keep pretending what the judges are doing is legal.

18-1 on December 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The %1 pay the bottom %50 for their votes, so they can pillage the middle %49. It’s not even necessarily a Democrat or Republican thing. There are complicit politicians in both parties.

This is essentially the German version of socialism.

Faced with a growing middle class, the German aristocracy bought off the German lower classes with social welfare programs. Most people don’t realize it, because of the low quality of our public schools, but the first welfare state came out of Otto von Bismarck’s Germany…

18-1 on December 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I’m pro choice on this one.

forest on December 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I personally subscribe to the Creationist view but have no problem at all with public schools teaching Evolution. Liberals are the ones having issues with the whole matter, not most of us.

Actually, reality-based people of all political persuasions, from Neil Boortz to ernesto and beyond, have problems with creationism (especially young-Earth creationism, which is flat-out, 100% WRONG on all facts and in the face of all available evidence) being taught as science in ANY classroom.

There’s a reason for this. Creationism is not science. It isn’t an ‘alternative’ to science. It’s religion.

If you want to stunt your child’s understanding of science and conflate it with supernatural myths and legends, send them to a private or parochial or religious school that teaches that nonsense – yes, that is your right – but don’t complain when cold hard physical and scientific reality clashes with what they’re being taught there.

Good Lt on December 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

What if one of those schools was a madrassa? What if one taught only in Spanish? What if one promoted gay-lifestyle as the norm?

Not one of those complaining would be OK with any of those possible scenarios. But that’s what you open the door to if you allow state/fed funding of religions.

You’ve turned the Constitution into rolling papers. The burning-ink is getting you really high.

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Amen! Preach it brother!

tom daschle concerned on December 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You just don’t get it. It is for the children unions!

Odysseus on December 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

This is a local judge’s opinion? Meh, probably a wuss afraid of backlash.

guido911 on December 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

You’re an ass. MOST school voucher programs are directed at low-income kids. People with more means are better able to afford to send their kids to private schools/better schools.
Btw: Jindal is NOT a dem lite-he IS a conservative.
Did I mention that you’re an ass?

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

“The MFP was set up for students attending public elementary and secondary schools and was never meant to be diverted to private educational providers,” Kelley wrote in a 39-page ruling.

Sounds like someone had to do some twisting and turning.

I am so saddened by this move. All those poor children will never find out that The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good.

lester on December 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

So much straw. Oh and you’re ugly. I know you’re a lonely little twit.

CW on December 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

No part of Socialism can EVER be optional.

In fact, that’s the whole damned point of it.

logis on December 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

“If it’s not good for the State, it’s not good for your child.” – Leftist Believer

njrob on December 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

What if one of those schools was a madrassa? What if one taught only in Spanish? What if one promoted gay-lifestyle as the norm?

Not one of those complaining would be OK with any of those possible scenarios. But that’s what you open the door to if you allow state/fed funding of religions.

If those schools aren’t paid for by tax dollars then legally it’s none of my business.

You’ve turned the Constitution into rolling papers. The burning-ink is getting you really high.

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You really are clueless. First, I’d like you to show me where in the constitution it says anything about separation of church and state. It doesn’t, but the bill of rights does say something about it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

-Bill of rights Amendment I

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

.
You’re an ass. MOST school voucher programs are directed at low-income kids. People with more means are better able to afford to send their kids to private schools/better schools.
Btw: Jindal is NOT a dem lite-he IS a conservative.
Did I mention that you’re an ass?

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

.
Good evening, ‘twerp !
.
saul’, you’re a . . . . . oh, … never mind.

She already said it.

listens2glenn on December 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

You’re an ass. MOST school voucher programs are directed at low-income kids. People with more means are better able to afford to send their kids to private schools/better schools.
Btw: Jindal is NOT a dem lite-he IS a conservative.
Did I mention that you’re an ass?

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

A voucher program specifically for low-income parents is redistributing wealth to those already not paying taxes. The kind of thing that Dem Lites like Jindal would support. A conservative would support a voucher program for everybody.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

listens2glenn on December 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Heh.
I need to be careful not to sound like I think Jindal is perfect and beyond reproach. He isn’t. No one is.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I guess that you think that Milton Friedman was a Dem light too.
He was a huge SUPPORTER of voucher programs like the one Jindal is pushing.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 6:31 PM

A voucher program specifically for low-income parents is redistributing wealth to those already not paying taxes. The kind of thing that Dem Lites like Jindal would support. A conservative would support a voucher program for everybody.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

See even our guys don’t get it. They really do think you can be a little bit pregnant. They don’t realize that once you start down the entitlement road you end up exactly where we are right now. The verge of financial collapse. The only question is how fast do you get there.

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 6:37 PM

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

To what document are those amendments attached?

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Louisiana students need better schools and vouchers. But religious institutions teaching dubious science are not the answer.

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

If those schools aren’t paid for by tax dollars then legally it’s none of my business.

At least you’re consistent. There is nothing more I can ask. I appreciate you shooting straight even if we buck a little.

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I think Milton Friedman was conservative..also, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater if you’re wondering.

Jindal is Dem Lite since he’s out there right now basing his main case for 2016 on pandering to groups with gifts/redistribution of wealth.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

it takes more faith to believe that we got here out of nothing than to believe that the whole process was set into motion by a higher power. That’s what ID is.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

To what document are those amendments attached?

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Does this mean that you agree that the constitution says that the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited?

DFCtomm on December 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

listens2glenn on December 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

.
Heh.
I need to be careful not to sound like I think Jindal is perfect and beyond reproach. He isn’t. No one is.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

.
Except for me, of course. : )
.
What ? !

listens2glenn on December 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

This is where Jindal can make his Jacksonian stand and challenge the court to force him to yank the kids out. Not sure of LA constitution, but if he can get away with it, then do it. At least it’ll allow the voucher system to more firmly rooted until he is out of office. And concurrently use every media op to bash the union over this. If support is strong, pull a Scott Walker and cut the union down to size a la right to work and/or rescinding automatic dues withholding.

AH_C on December 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

What if one of those schools was a madrassa? What if one taught only in Spanish? What if one promoted gay-lifestyle as the norm?

Not one of those complaining would be OK with any of those possible scenarios. But that’s what you open the door to if you allow state/fed funding of religions.

You’ve turned the Constitution into rolling papers. The burning-ink is getting you really high.

Capitalist Hog on December 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

My public school, which is on the poor performance watch list in NY, spends over $20,000 per student with over $7500 of that going to teacher benefits. They are definitely cool with muslim garb, having dual language program (epic fail) and just recently promoted a high school coming-out day. What was your point again???

monalisa on December 3, 2012 at 7:34 PM

mybe they can suez the state 4 sub staner edukation?

JustHugh on December 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Bobby Jindal is a skinny Mike Huckabee. They’re religious Southerners, so they end up as registered R’s. But their social justice, redistributionist policies are very similar to leftist Democrats.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

If Jindal were anything like Huck-he wouldn’t be my first choice for 2016.
He’s nothing like Huck.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2