In an important recent decision, the Supreme Court upheld a voucher program for students attending religious and other private schools in Cleveland, Ohio, because

• A. The schools promised to teach no course involving religion.
• B. The aid was not given to particular schools but to the families who chose the schools.
• C. The schools removed all religious symbols and artifacts.
• D. The aid was given directly to the particular schools.

Answer: (B)

The main idea tested is how government aid to education can be constitutional when it respects neutrality toward religion by sending the money to families, not directly to religious schools. In this ruling, the Court upheld the voucher program because the funds were distributed to eligible students and their families, who then chose among public and private schools, including religious ones. The state was not directing funds to a particular school or endorsing a religion; the aid simply helped families pay for education they choose. This structure preserves government neutrality toward religion and avoids coercion or endorsement, which is why it fits the constitutional standard.

The other options miss the crucial point. The decision did not hinge on prohibiting religion in curricula, nor on removing religious symbols, nor on giving funds straight to schools. Giving money directly to schools would risk government endorsement of religion, which the Court found improper in this context.