70-9629 RUITER, Michael rhomas, 1928EDUCAID—A RA TIONALE AND A MODEL FOR GRANTING FINANCIAL AID TO THE NON­ PUBLIC SCHOO STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State Lniversity, Ph.D., 1969 Education, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Q Copyright by . i MICHAEL THOMAS RUITER j 1970 EDUCAID A RATIONALE AND A MODEL FOR GRANTING FINANCIAL AID TO THE NONPUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN By Michael Thomas Ruiter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 ABSTRACT EDUCAID A RATIONALE AND A MODEL FOR GRANTING FINANCIAL AID TO THE NONPUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MICHIGAN By Michael Thomas Ruiter Nonpublic elementary and secondary schools have always been a signifi­ cant part of the total educational resources in the United States. These schools serve millions of American youth each year. In the State of Michigan 315,000 children are enrolled in the nonpublio schools during the 1968-69 school year. Nationally the percentage of nonpublic school students is about the same as it is In Michigan . . , approximately one out of every seven school children. Until the 1960*8 nonpublic schools received scant audience in the edu­ cational forum and only token public funds were granted to them in a few states. However, recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court, aots passed by several states, and studies conducted by the State Department of Education in the several states all suggest that before long the nonpublic schools oould be the recipients of public tax funds. One of the most significant educational Issues being debated by the citi­ zens of our state and the nation today is the question of tax support for nonpublic schools. The debate will eventually be settled in the courts; but aside from all the arguments pro and con, the fact is simply that a revenue crisis faces the Michigan private and paroohlal elementary and secondary schools. Supporters of nonpublio sohools are caught In a financial bind, and eaoh year more schools are forced to d o s e as a result of inadequate funding. Michael Thomas Ruiter Unless public assistance is proffered soon most of them will have no option but to terminate operations. The role of nonpublic education is given historical review, and the evolvement of both the public and nonpublic sohools in the nation is explained. One of the purposes of this dissertation is to defend Educaid by exploring the philosophi­ cal premises which undergird the nature of education, and the meaning of educa­ tional freedom in the United States. The major purpose of the study is the develop­ ment of a philosophically and administratively defensible model for providing public financial assistance to the students attending the nonpublic schools in Michi­ gan, Rationale for the Educaid thesis 1b provided in a series of arguments, and a chapter Is dedicated to the constitutionality question. The proposed model advocates grants be paid to the parents of children enrolled in nonpublic schools, and the Intermediate School District is the agenoy through which the program is to be administered. As a result of this study the author is persuaded that the nonpublio schools have made an appreciable con­ tribution to the education of thousands of children for whioh they have reoelved no public support, and little appreciation. For generations they have suffered fi­ nancial disability and soolal injustice, and their proponents are now "pressing" society for educational freedom without economic penalty. Public funds for non­ publio education appears to be constitutional; It is just, reasonable, and economi­ cally feasible. Recommendations for subsequent action to benefit all school children in the state conolude the study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of his guidance committee. Included were: Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Fred J. Vescolani James Heald Dale Alam James McKee Special credit is given to Dr. Vescolani, committee chairman, for his counsel and encouragement throughout the author's tenure as a student at Michigan State University, and especially during the writing of this study. Appreciation is also extended to the following persons who assisted in assimilating data, or offered constructive ideas: Representative Peter Kok Mrs. Claire Zuk Dr. Virgil C. Blum Dr. William Brickman Dr. John Vanden Berg My wife Jean has earned a special tribute. Her encouragement and will­ ingness to shoulder alone the responsibilities of our home during my stay in East Lansing enabled the completion of this work. In addition, she is to be credited with typing the manuscript. Michael T. Ruiter May, 1969 il TABLE O F CONTENTS CHAPTER I, n. HI. PAGE INTRODUCTION......................................................... 1 A. Statement of the P r o b l e m ............................. 4 B. Purpose and Significance of the Study. . . . 7 C. Design of the Study. . . . . . . . . . 8 D. Assumptions and L im ita tio n s ......................... 11 E. D e fin itio n s ....................................................... 12 F. Review of L ite ra tu re ........................................ 12 H IS T O R Y .................................................................... 13 A. History of American Education......................... 13 B. History of Federal Aid to Nonpublic Schools C. History of State Aid to Students Attending Nonpublic Schools in M ichigan.......................... 29 RATIONALE FOR STATE AID TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS................................................... 38 A. C om petition....................................................... 45 B. Contributes to the General Welfare 46 C. Disproportionate Benefit to Catholics. . . . 49 D. Devisiveness....................................................... 50 E. Double T a x a t i o n ............................................. 52 F. Economic Feasibility . 53 G. Encouragement of Undemocratic P ractices. . 55 H. Foot in the D o o r ............................................. 55 I. Freedom of Choice in Religion and Education . 56 iii . . . . . 26 CHAPTER PAGE J. Government C o n tr o l............................................ 57 K. Pluralism ................................................................. 59 L. Proliferation............................................................ 60 M. Racial Segregation.................................................. 62 N. Religion in Public S c h o o ls .................................. 63 0. Separation of Church and State.............................. 66 P. T radition................................................................. 68 Q. Threat to Public Schools........................................ 69 IV. CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR STATE AID TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS............................... 71 V. MEANS BY WHICH STATE AID COULD BE GRANTED TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS . . 84 A. Auxiliary Services.................................................. 84 B. Property Tax Deductions........................................ 85 C. Purchase Educational Services.............................. 85 D. Public E m ployees.................................................. 86 E. Tuition G r a n ts ....................................................... 86 F. Tax C r e d i t ............................................................ 86 G. Voucher P l a n ............................................ 87 H. Direct A i d ............................................................ 87 1. Shared T i m e ....................................................... 87 J. Scholarship P l a n .................................................. 88 VI. MODEL FOR GRANTING STATE AID TO CHILDREN ATTENDING MICHIGAN'S NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS . . 89 VH. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 95 A. C onclusions............................................................ 96 B. Recommendations.................................................. 98 • iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Nonpublic* elementary and secondary schools have always been a signifi­ cant part of the total educational resources in the United States. These schools serve millions of American youth each year. In the State of Michigan approxi­ mately 315,000 children attend nonpublic schools. They represent thirteen and three-tenths percent of all Michigan children from kindergarten . through* the twelfth grade. Nationally the percentage of nonpublic4 school students is about * the same as it is in Michigan . . . approximately one out of every seven school * > children. In 1068 a thorough study of Michigan's elementary and secondary schools entitled "School Finanoe and Educational Opportunity in Michigan" was published by the Michigan Department of Education, This significant work, under the di­ rection of Dr. Alan Thomas of the University of Chicago, contains more than ninety pages devoted to the contribution and needs of the nonpublio sohools in the state. Dr, Donald Eriokson, one of the participants In this study, wrote a ohapi ter regarding the nonpublio schools. In .his initial observations he states that t . . "no comprehensive study of school finanoe In Michigan oan logically ignore the state's nonpublio schools." 1 In reference to the large number (more than *Nonpublio schools are defined as sohools . whioh although subject to pertinent regulatory controls of the State, are not governed by publio agencies, but are operated by a church related o r nonsectarian organization or association. For purposes of this study nonpublio sohools will Include all state approved inde­ pendent, parochial, parent-owned, and non-profit private sohools which provide a full, daytime program of education for children in grades kindergarten through grade twelve. 1. Donald A. Eriokson, "Nonpublio Sohools in Michigan" in School Finanoe and Educational Opportunity in Michigan. J. Allan Thomas, e d ., (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Eduoatlon, 1968), p. 209. I 2 300,000) of children who are enrolled In nonpublio sohools Eriokson wrote, These pupils demand consideration in their own right; the quality of the education they receive In nonpublic sohools will affect the general welfare. The state could hardly pretend not to notice if nonpublio sohools were able1to underwrite only grossly Inadequate programs for nearly one-seventh of all future citizens, * Until the 1960's nonpublic schools reoelved scant audlenoe in the education­ al forum and only token public funds were granted in a few states, Reoent de­ cisions by the United States Supreme Court (ex. Board of Education v, Allen on appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York, re textbooks on loan to non­ public school students, June 10, 1968), acts passed by several states (ex. Pennsylvania Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Act for the purchase of in­ struction In seoular subjects, June 19, 1968), and studies oonduoted by the de­ partment of education in the several states (ex. Michigan Sohool Finanoe Study, 1968) all suggest that before long the nonpublio schools could be the recipients of public tax funds. Political leaders in the nation and the state have voiced unmistakable ooncern for the financial welfare of the nonpublio sohools, Rlohard M. Nixon while campaigning for the presidency made the following statements in Pittsburgh, October 28, 1968: New conditions and new times require u b to constantly re-evaluate our programs and policies. That is true as well about. the relationship of gov­ ernment to our religiously affiliated sohools. There Is a significant role for religiously-affiliated sohools in the future of our country* Along with state schools and other private sohools, they have grown slde-by-slde in serving American people. Change has brought a new priority to the edu­ cation of our young people. We must maintain a diversity of approaches to meet this national challenge, I am very well acquainted with the concern that some have about any kind of public assistance to paroohial schools. It is a complex problem, full of social and legal difficulties. But our schools today are f&oed with new responsibilities, new challenges and new burdens. In many oases, religious schools are performing indispensable community servloes and would seem to m erit public support. 2, Ibid, p, 209, 3 In the meantime, a new Administration will proceed with the new approaches outlined in the Republican Platform and in my radio speech of last week - including federal funds in support of state-prepared, state-administered aid plans for private school pupils. For as I said then, it would be a tragedy of the first magnitude if private schools were driven out of existence.3 | Congressman Gerald R. Ford, House Minority Leader, made these statements in Washington in an interview with the author on January 13, 1969: Nonpublic schools have made significant contributions to the community, state and nation. I feel that the federal govemmentlhas found the proper way for aiding nonpublic schools. That way is for tne government to assist students, whether they are in public or private Institutions. This formula has worked well on the federal level and it could be the way for states to make a contribution to education on a broad basis, ind could appropriately be used by the states for nonpublic schools.4 i In his State of the State message to the 75th Michigan Legislature | Governor-elect William G, Milliken candidly expressed his views about the "plight’1 of the nonpublic schools. He said: We must be diligent in our efforts to maintain diversification in edu­ cation. Strong private and independent institutions have long demonstrated their value in all walks of American life. It would be tragic if circum­ stances should cause the private schools and colleges, religious-affiliated or otherwise, to deteriorate and disappear. This prospect is before us, and has led to proposals for State aid to education in nonpublic schools. You will be considering such proposals in the current session. I tell you candidly that 1 view the plight of the nonpublic school with deep sympathy. Considering the afore-mentioned facts and official expressions from government officials it is probable that very soon the Michigan legislature will j enact a bill ( s ) to provide aid to the students enrolled In nonpublic schools. If it should both the public and nonpublic educational systems will be affected and ■ administrative adjustments will be made. - | • 3. New York Times, October 28, 1968. 4. The Grand Rapids P ress, January 14, 1969. 5. Release, office of Lt. Governor Wm. G. Milliken, January 9, 1969. 4 A. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM One of the most significant educational issues being debated by the citizens of our state and of the nation today is the question of tax support for nonpublic schools. The debate will eventually be settled in the courts; but aside from all the arguments pro and con, the fact is simply that a revenue crisis faces the Michigan private elementary and secondary schools. Unless public assis­ tance is proffered soon most of them "could eventually be forced to close through sheer financial pressure. " The "Children's Education Bill" designed to benefit children attending nonpublic schools was introduced in the Michigan Legislature in February, 1968. Although the Senate and House Education Committees took no action on the Bill, political pressure and general public Interest have retained the concern and attention of our representatives and senators. On January 16, 1969 a joint legislative committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Anthony Stamm, released a report and recommendations for aid to the nonpublio schools. Other members of the house and senate have indicated their intentions to submit comparable proposals. Pending a means to raise the necessary funds, it appears very likely that the 75th legislature will approve a public aot providing assistance to Michigan's nonpublic school children. Supporters of nonpublic schools are caught in a financial bind from which they cannot extricate themselves. Most of the private schools in the state are currently operating in a severe financial crisis. As a result of inadequate funding, each year more nonpublic schools have been forced to close. From the turn of the century until 1965 (with the exception of the depression years), private and parochial school population has continued to increase. However 6. Erickson, o p .c lt., pp. 265, 324. 7, Facts and opinions in this paragraph are based on conversations held with state senators and representatives in January, 1969, 5 since the 1965-66 school year the number of students in Michigan's nonpublic schools has continued to decrease. And each successive year the student loss is greater. In the 1964-65 school year 361,000 students were enrolled in these schools; four years later the enrollment had declined almost thirteen per cent so that the current (1968-69) population is 315,000. Over the past four years the student Io b s has been 46,000 students who have now transferred to the public schools to continue their education. Circumstances which force students to transfer from the nonpublic to the public schools in the state at the same time compound financial problems in the public sector. Those 46,000 students "now enrolled in public schools are cost­ ing Michigan taxpayers — state and local — an additional $28.8 million dollars. If the present trend continues, the figure on that price tag will reach the $46 million mark next year . . . $70 million the following year . . . and $100 million Q in the 1971-72 school year. " The problem to be studied by the author is the development of a model for providing public financial assistance to the students attending the nonpublic schools in Michigan. This model will be framed within a context which identifies historical precedence and philosophical defensibility for such aid. It will also be supported on the grounds that partial investment in the education of nonpublic school children will be more economical to the tax-paying public than paying the full cost for educating these children in public schools. In an effort to wrestle meaningfully with the many ramifications of this complex problem, attempts will be made to answer the following questions: 1. Can the state grant assistance to nonpublic schools when it is recog­ nized that the nonpublio school curriculum is permeated with religious values ? 8. Data obtained from a Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Nonpublic schools of the Michigan Legislature, January 16, 1969, pp. 8-10. 6 2. Does aid to the nonpublio schools violate the principle of separation of church and state? 3. In a pluralistic society what Is implied by a freedom of choice in education? 4. Would Educaid encourage devisiveness in our society? 5. Would Eduoaid result in needless duplication and waste of tax dollars? 6. In what form should aid be granted to students attending nonpublic schools? 7 B. PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY It is the author's thesis that all educational institutions which promote the general welfare of society should receive tax support for the services which they render. In-as-much as both public and nonpublic schools are educating children under the supervision of the state, and are thereby serving the public welfare in that they provide an "educated" citizenry, both should command the financial support of the state. One of the purposes of this dissertation is to defend Educaid by exploring the philosophical premises which undergird the nature of education, and the meaning of educational freedom in the United States. The major purpose of the author in proposing this study is to provide a working model which could be used by the state and the school districts as a vehicle for granting aid to students attending nonpublic schools. Should aid be forth-coming, the means by which it is administered, and the impact which will be absorbed in both the public and nonpublio schools, are very important considerations. Yet few educators to date have voiced their convictions with supportive data on the subject. This I hope to achieve; if successful the study should be a meaningful addition to educational adminis­ tration both in theory and practice. In summary, the significance of this study could be the creation of an educational rationale for granting financial aid to all of Michigan's school children, and a model for the administration of Educaid. 8 C. DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study will combine the use of historical and descriptive research. It will provide facts and opinions about public financial aid to the nonpublic schools in the United States in general, and in Michigan in particular. According to Cook the nature and purpose of historical research In education is described as follows; A knowledge of history has often been glibly defended as enabling us to avoid making the same mistakes in the future, or in some cases even to pre­ dict the future. There is a grain of truth in this, but it makes more sense to think of an understanding of history as providing us with a perspective on the future. Generally problems involving educational policy or processes can be studied by historical methods. Important issues facing education, such as the present ones of state-church relations and integration of public schools, must be approached with wisdom and understanding in order to move toward their solution. The historical background of these issues is invaluable in supplying wisdom and understanding.9 John W. Best gives the following definition of descriptive research: Descriptive research describes and Interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions o r relationships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs, points of view, o r attitudes that are being felt; or trends that are developing. The process of descriptive research goes beyond mere gathering . . . of data. It involves an element of Interpretation of the meaning or significance of what is described.10 One of the major purposes of this study is to construct a model by which financial aid could be channeled to the children attending nongovernmental schools in the State, In a logical approach to that primary objective it is essential to re ­ view the history of American education and to explain the educational philosophy which supported the evolvement of public and private education from the forming of the nation to the present time. This objeotive presupposes a defense for aid which can be supported by historical reference and philosophical logic, A 9, David R, Cook, A Guide to Educational Research, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc,, 1965, pp. 15, 16. 10. John W. Best, Research in Education. ( Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Frentice-Hall, In c ., 1959) pp. 102, 103, 9 survey of the history of education in the United States and in Michigan will dis­ close Federal and State subventions to nonpublic schools during various periods in our history. Data will be obtained from the major books, documents, and files on the subject in conventional libraries, from the Michigan Historical Commission, and the State Law Library, The author will attempt to show that tax funds for the education of children in nonpublic schools have been expended for certain educational services and the teaching of "secular" subjects, and have not yet been declared unconstitu­ tional. He will also deal with the question of parents' freedom of religion in the education of their children under the Constitution. Argumentation will be supported with reference to historical events that surrounded the drafting of our Federal Constitution and Amendments, citation of Supreme Court decisions, and legal opinions. After surveying the history and philosophy of American education in both the public and private schools, and after submitting philosophical and constitution­ al support for aid to the nonpublic schools, the various plausible options or form­ ulae by which aid could be granted will be reviewed briefly. Last year Pennsylvania signed into law a "Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act". Un­ doubtedly this act will be tested eventually in the Supreme Court; if it stands the Constitutional test, the Pennsylvania school aid formula for nonpublic schools will probably serve as a model for many other states. On January 16, 1969 a Joint Committee of the Michigan Legislature submitted a plan for aiding the non­ public schools. Other individuals and organizations have conceived proposals ranging from tuition grants to the purchase of secular education services. As in­ terest in the subject inoreases other concepts will be born, each possessing its peculiar benefits and limitations. A compilation of alternate plans should make possible a comparative analysis for those educators who are interested in study­ ing the options. 10 Finally the author will design a recommended model or proposed plan which hebelieves to be a medium by which tax funds could be tendered to the non­ public school students in Michigan. This in essence will contain an approach to aid which meets constitutional standards, and which provides funds with adequate control without destroying the purposes or identity of the nonpublic schools. The proposed plan will attempt to prescribe a formula which will be simple to admin­ ister and void of expensive "red tape". The following headings will introduce each of the chapters in this disserta­ tion: I. Introduction n . History X. Brief history of American education showing the changing purposes from colonial times to the 1960's. 2. History of federal aid to nonpublic schools, 3. History of state aid to students attending nonpublic schools In Michigan. HI. Rationale for state aid to nonpublic school students. IV. Constitutional support for state aid to nonpublic school students. V. Means by which state aid could be granted to nonpublic school students, VI. Model for granting state aid to children attending Michigan's nonpublic schools. VII. Conclusions and Recommendations, 11 D. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS The study will be based upon very limited reference to the history of nonpublic schools in the nation, and will deal almost exclusively with the schools in Michigan, Therefore, the applicability of recommendations to other states should be assessed by those who might want to utilize the study, recognizing that it was designed to apply to Michigan in particular. One of the greatest questions to be raised is the constitutionality of aid to the nonpublic school sector. It would be an idle exercise at best to advanoe a proposal which obviously could not meet both state and national constitutional standards. This study is being proposed considering the legislative precedents which have been tested and tried in the courts of Michigan and the United States, as they pertain to aid to nonpublic school children. However, no one can be certain that any law is constitutional until it is tested in court. It is assumed that the thesis would stand the constitutional test. Finally it is assumed that on the basis of interest and concern which has been evidenced by the Michigan legislature (and which has been documented in preceding sections of this proposal), a bill will become a public act providing the proposed financial aid to the nonpublio students in the state. This study will have limited relevance unless in fact a bill will be passed by the legislature in the near future. 12 E . DEFINITIONS 1, "Nonpublic school" - all state approved independent, parochial, parentowned, and private schools which provide a full, daytime program of education for children in grades K-12. 2, "Educaid" - public tax funds which have been earmarked for assisting, either directly or indirectly, the students who are in attendance in a state approved nonpublic elementary or secondary school, 3, "Pupil or student" - a resident of the state who is in attendance in a state approved elementary or secondary school, grades K-12 according to the compulsory school attendance laws, 4, "Secular subject" - any subject which is offered in the curricula of the public schools of the state, and which does not include any subject matter expressing religious teaching or the morals or forms of worship of any sect, 5, "Secular educational benefits" - providing of instruction in a seoular subject to students attending nonpublic schools as long as the primary purpose of such instruction is directed to the secular education, and the primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. F« REVIEW OF LITERATURE A selected review of the literature will be made including books, periodi­ cals, newspapers, doctoral dissertations, legal documents and other publications relating to the subject, Educaid, Provisions in the state and national constitutions, and decisions rendered in many court cases will also be consulted. An analysis of eduoatlonal services acts in other states, and in the nation will also serve as reference material. CHAPTER II HISTORY A. History of American Education This review of the history of American education is designed to depict the evolvement of formal education from its birth to the present, and to demonstrate the changing roles of the church and state in both the public and nonpublic schools of our nation. In support of the proposition to grant public financial aid for the education of all children it is germane to understand the historically determined purposes for the establishment of compulsory education in the United States. The early educational history of America can hardly be understood with­ out some knowledge of the European background of the different religious conflicts which were precipitated by the Protestant Reformation. To comprehend it one has to know the primary motivation underlying Luther's action, as well as the action of Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox. The idea was that of substituting the authority of the Bible in religious m atters for the authority of the Church, and was in turn one of the results of the revival of the study of Greek and the recovery of the gospels in the original. This meant the substitution of individual responsibility for sal­ vation for the collective responsibility of the Church, and meant that those who were to be saved in theory at least, must be able to read the word of God.1 The earliest American settlements were due mostly to the desire to ob­ tain religious freedom, and were a direct result of the warfare and persecution following the Protestant Revolt in Europe. Those who came to establish new homes in the New World did so that here "they might establish their churches, order their civil life, and bring up their children to worship God after the dic­ tates of their own conscience. " 2 They had come from nations where the church and state were not separated. In seeking religious freedom for themselves 1. Ell wood P. Cubborly, Public Education in the United States, Chicago, Houghton Mifflin C o,, 1919, p. 9. 2. Ibid, p. 11. 1Q 14 however, Bome colonists did not want to extend the same freedom to those with whom they differed doctrinally. As a result in some colonies the union of church and state produced Intolerance and provincialism. America's first schools were conspicuously the fruits of Protestantism. All of the reformers had insisted upon the necessity of the Gospel as a means of personal salvation. This meant that "each child, girls as well as boys, should be taught to read so that they might become acquainted with the commandments of God and learn what was demanded of them. " ® Practically all of the early settlers came from those countries and peoples which had embraced one of the Protestant faiths, and most came to enjoy religious freedom which they had been denied in their native land. Those Puritans who settled New England probably contributed more than any other colonial group to the development of American education. They estab­ lished practices which were subsequently adopted in all the states. Initially they had set up a form of government which combined the civil and religious into what became known as the New England town. Civic and religious experiences were lived in the "Meeting House" and in it they met both as a religious congregation and as a civil government. The two were one in membership and spirit. Being deeply imbued with Calvinistic ideas as to religion and government, the Puritans founded here a series of little town governments, the com er stones of which were religion and education. 4 The distinction between "public" and "private" or "parochial" schools was very remote throughout most of our colonial history. Quite understandably "whenever one denominational group enjoyed a dominant position the schools wore, in a sense, under 'public' sponsorship, but this was only because in such cases church and state were one." 5 3. Ibid, p. 11. 4. Ibid, p. 16. 5. Lloyd P. Jorgenson, "The Birth of a Tradition", Phi Delta Kappan. XLIV, No. 9, June, 1963, p. 407. 15 Providing for the education of the children was considered to be a proper function of the church, and all denominational groups assumed this responsibility. However, it soon became apparent that the voluntary efforts of churches and parents would not be adequate to guarantee thattype of general education whichwas required to fulfill the objectives of the Puritans. Because too many of the parents were neglectful, "the leaders in the Puritan Church appealed to what was then their servant, the State as represented in the colonial legislature, to assist them in com­ pelling parents and m asters to observe their obligations." 6 As a result the col­ onists adopted the Massachusetts Law of 1642 which authorized town officials to make periodic checks with parents and with those who had been employed as teachers, to see if the children were being taught "to read and understand the principles of relig­ ion and the capital laws of the country. " Five years later Massachusetts passed an ordinance which directed all towns of flftyor more families to provide schools. Knight says: the control of the schools established under this law was ecolesiastioal and not secular, the teachers were ministers or were approved by the m inisters, under the strictest vigilance as to orthodoxy, and the materials of instruction were religious. 7 The Ordinance of 1647 also committed every town of 100 families to provides Latin Grammar School, whichwas a preparatory school for those boys who sought a univers­ ity training. Cubberly states that these two Massachusetts laws were really the "founda­ tion stones" uponwhich the American publio school system was subsequently built. He quotes a Mr. Martin, an historian for the Massachusetts publio school syBtem, who stated that the fundamental principles which underlie this early educational legislation were: 1. The universal education of youth is essential to the well-being of the State, 2. The obligation to furnish this education rests primarily upon the parents. 6. Cubberly, op. c l t ,, p. 17. 7. Edgar W. Knight, Education in the United States, New York, Ginn and C o.. 1929, p. ,106. -----------------:— :------------------ 10 3, The State has the right to force this obligation. 4, The State may fix a standard which shall determine the kind of education and the minimum amount, 5, Public money, raised by a general tax, may be used to provide such ed­ ucation as the State requires. This tax may be general, though the school attendance is not, i 6, Education higher than the rudiments may be supplied by the State. Oppor­ tunity: must be provided, at public expense for youths who wish to be fitted for the university. ® Then Martin, in review of these principles, made a statement which oaptures the gist of educational policy as it pertains to responsibility for American publio edu­ cation at that time. He said: . . . the idea underlying all this legislation was neither patemallstlo nor socialistic. The child is to be educated, not to advance his personalinterests, but because the State will suffer if he Is not educated. The State does not provide schools to relieve the parent, nor because it oan eduoate better than the parent can, but because it can thereby better enforoe the obligation which It imposes.9 Our early educational history is characterized by three views of eduoatlon which became evidenced in the types of sohools whloh were established and the means by which they were established and the means by whioh they were flnanoed.10 These types, which remained until the Amerloan Revolution, appreciably influenced subsequent development of Amerioan educational Institutions. In New England the Puritan Calvinists had had a complete monopoly of both Churoh and State and thus were able to establish their own school system with a completely Puritan Protestant ethic. They believed in a religious conception of the State and supf ported common sohools, Latin grammar schools and colleges, both for religi­ ous and civic purposes. The middle colonies were composed of peoples representing different 8. Cubberly, op. c it., pp. 18, 10. 9. Ibid, p. 19. 10. Ibid, pp. 20-24. 17 Protestant denominations, and although all agreed upon the importance of onefs ability to read the Bible, no sect was in a majority. Each parochial group established its own church schools, and approved ecclesiastical control of all educational efforts. They resented and resisted any state Interference. Southern colonies retained the attitude of the Church of England and es­ tablished schools according to social class. The middle and upper class children attended either private or church schools, and many were taught by private tutors in their homes. Children of paupers and orphans were afforded a meager train­ ing in charity schools financed by both the church and contributions of the local community. Southerners at this time viewed publio eduoation as that which was intended prim arily for the children of the poor and orphans; it was considered a type of charity for which the state had little obligation to finance. The earliest American schools were parochial, that is, church sponsored and ecclesiastically controlled, and although some colonial schools were Bemipubllc, without question the most prominent characteristic of all sohooling was the permeation of religion in all instruction. The King James Version of the Bible and the shorter Catechism were the basic texts. Although the New Eng­ land colonies were the most insistent on religious emphasis, in all of the colonies the religious purpose was predominant until the middle of the eighteeneth century. Financing compulsory education has always been a problem and a concern of the American people. The first schools were supported by donations from in­ dividuals and the church. When these proved to be insufficient land endowments and income from various publio utilities, primarily mills and ferries, were the primary means of support. Because of the tradition of ohurch-state cooperation in education, public support for private and denominational sohools was common­ place. In foot the early state constitutions and statutes actively enoouraged the 11. Bernard Bailyn, Education in the Forming of Amerloan Society. Chapel Hill, N. C ., University of North Carolina P ress, 1960, p. 42. 18 practice. "Grants of both money and land were made extensively to schools of all levels. Indeed, public aid to denominational schools Increased considerably until about 1820, and persisted, in diminishing but still significant amounts, until well after the Civil War. " 12 When it became apparent that endowments and voluntary contributions were inadequate direct taxation was employed. New Eng­ land first initiated a form of general taxation, and although of course it was not immediately adopted throughout the colonies, the various forms of school finance shared with taxation one important feature. Everywhere in the middle colonies and in the south as well as in New England - the support for schools and even colleges came not from the auto­ matic yield from secure investments but from repeated acts of current donation, whether in the form of taxes, or of individual, family, or com­ munity gifts. The autonomy that comes from an independent, reliable, self-perpetuating income was everywhere lacking. The economic basis of self direction in education failed to develop. It is the common characteristic which taxation shares with the other modes of colonial financing, and not its public aspects that gives it great importance in the history of American education. " *3 Consequently external control of schools became an established tradition. As a result American schools have continued to be sensitive to community pressure, directly reflecting the interests of their sustaining groups. This is generally true of both public and nonpublic Protestant schools. Where the parochial schools were the prevailing type, education remained under church direction and control until after the establishment of our national government. However, in New England a change in the character of the schools began to take place around 1750. Here the schools were making the transition from a church into state sponsored institutions. 14 The day of the monopoly of any one sect was over. Second and third generation people who had not known religious oppression turned from religion to new secular interests as their chief topic of conversation. The erection of the town hall where school business was 12. Jorgenson, op, c i t ., p. 408. 13. Bailyn, op. c it., pp. 44, 45. 14. Cubberly, op. c i t ., p. 44. 19 conducted rather than in the church, and the assessment of town taxes rather than church taxes, were contributing factors. By the time our national and state governments came Into being, most of the citizens were prinoipially ready to accept the idea that schools were basically state institutions. Since the interests of both the church and the state "w ere one and the same, there seemed no occasion for friction or fear. From this religious beginning the civil school, and the civil town and township, were later evolved," 15 Increasingly the political leaders were concerned with having a diverse body of European immigrants become assimilated in one nation. They believed that the public schools were the best media for making Americans .out of Euro­ peans. Gradually the citizenry began to acknowledge the necessity and legiti­ macy of the public school. At the same time many Protestants admitted the in­ ability of the churches to meet the eduoational needs out of their own resources. As Sidney Mead expressed it, " . . . the task was too Immense to be supported by voluntary churches that claimed as members only ten or twenty per cent of the total population. And so somewhat by default the state took over what had traditionally been part of the work of the churoh, " In addition to those factors already cited, many other ideas and events contributed to the transition from churoh-controlled to state-controlled education in our country from 1776 to 1826. With the birth of the new nation, with a national pride, and a national consciousness a common school for all community children possessed a natural emotional appeal. According to Cubberly there were four important eduoational movements ( all arising in philanthropy) which supplemented each other and made the idea of a 'common school' attraotive to many parents during the first half of the nineteenth century. They were the Sunday sohool, 15. Ibid, p. 45, 16. Sidney E. Mead. The Lively. Experiment. New York. Harper and Row. Inc.. 1963, p. 67. 20 the semi-public city School Societies, the Lancastrial plan for instruction (where one m aster teacher could assume responsibility for 100 or more pupils), and the Infant School Idea, ^ Especially the Lancastrial School Societies, which pro­ vided educational opportunities for all children, united together both the humani­ tarians and the laboring class in efforts to obtain tax-supported schools. As the concept of the common school continued to be more broadly adopted, the public school idea in Massachusetts, under the leadership of Horace Mann, was receiving considerable favorable attention. Mann hilly accepted the proposition, almost universally held in his day, that religious instruction was an indispensable part of the work of the school. However, he argued, the inolusion of the doctrines unique to any sect would alienate all other sects. The public schools would therefore have to be nonsectarian schools. As he and others of like mind often expressed it, the great 'common truths' of Christianity should be taught - - but anything more than this would be sectarianism and hence inadmissible, 18 Quite understandably the movement to have the state assume responsibility for education stirred grave apprehension among many Protestants, However, during the 1830's and 40's a great influx of Roman Catholic immigrants affected the course of American eduoational history. They strenuously objeoted to the Protestant tenets and practices in the American schools. This "Catholic oppo­ sition to certain practices In the publlo schools served to unite Protestants In their support of these schools and to hasten the success of the movement." The Catholics had always had a few schools of their own. With democratic In­ fluence increasing their desire for education, and with thousands of fellow Cath­ olics arriving from Europe they built many more. In days when all education was in private hands this arrangement had been satisfactory. Their teachers and their children had been on equal terms with Protestants. Under a system of publlo education, however, they contrib­ uted in taxes to the support of the sohools in which their teaohers 17. Cubberly, op. c it., p. 100. 18. Jorgenson, op. c it., p. 408. 10. Ibid, p. 48. 21 were not allowed to teach, and could not have taught the required subjects anyway without violating their own consciences. Besides, the Catholics like the Protestants did not want religion excluded from the schools; but they wanted to teach their own religion. In predominately Protestant America, Catholic control of the public schools was virtually im­ possible. Thus they preferred a parochial school system for the various re­ ligious denominations. When the Catholics demanded a fair share of the school fund and some state aid for the establishment of their own schools, the stage for the Protestant-Catholic battle was set. "Excepting the battle of slavery, perhaps no question has ever been before the American people for settlement which caused so much feeling o r aroused such bitter antagonism." 21 Rather than permit state funds to go to Catholic schools, Protestants "chose instead to support the option of what seemed to be at least from their vantage point - a more 'secular* school. Such was the logic that drove some Protestant churchmen toward a newfound commitment to public education." 22 And so, Protestant denominations, each fearing the Roman Catholics, but also distrusting one another, became committed to a school that was more secular than they really desired. According to Costanzo, the abandonment of state support for religious education in public schools was historically not motivated by any 'principle' of 'separation of church and state' o r the 'wall of separation', or a fear of the camel's nose, but the phantas­ magoria of papist, popish plots that danced in revelry in the Rdnds of nativisls and Know-Nothings and their progeny in succeeding decados. 23 20. Howard K. Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools, New York, Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1941, p. 98. 21. Cubberly, op. c i t ., p. 119. 22. Robert W. Lynn, Protestant Strategics in Education, New York, Association P ress, 1964, p. 18. 23. Joseph Costanzo, This Nation Under God, New York, Horder and Herder, 1964, p. 188. 22 To some, such strong descriptive assessment may appear to be an overstatement, but the author believes it to be historically accurate. There appears little doubt that the strongest wave of anti-Catholicism that this nation has ever known, spread through the country . at the same time that the common school had reached its popularity peak. These two contemporaneous developments bound together form the chief reasons for the rapid rise and growth of the public schools around which anxious Protestants rallied in the middle of the nineteenth century. But to understand the nature of the Common School Movement it is necessary to recognize another factor. The educational leaders were predominately Protes­ tant ministers. Such men as Calvin Stowe of Ohio, Robert J. Breckinridge of Kentucky, Caleb Mills of Indiana, and John D. Pierce of Michigan were all Protestant clergymen, who were renowned leaders of public education in their respective states. So the common school was, in its Inception and development a distinctly Protestant phenomenon. And as the Catholic position on the school question came into prominence, the leaders of Protestant churoh groups surged forward to defend the publlo school. In so doing, they made explicit what they had always assumed that the public sohools were Protestant institutions. 24 As the enthusiasm for publlo sohools (which were considered to be a sound defense against the growth of Catholicism) grew, enthusiasm for parochial sohools diminished especially among the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, The Protestant clergy, educational reform ers, and nativist political leaders were agreed on two major propositions: (1) that Bible reading (from the King James Version) and prayer must be enoouraged (and if possible required) in the publlo schools, and (2) that publlo funds should not be used for parochial schools. for Protestant paroohlal sohools was almost gone. By 1870 the support In that year the Episcopal Churoh Convention adopted a school polioy position which said in effect that paroohlal schools are approved 11'where they are practicable', but noted that 24. Jorgenson, op. c it,, p. 412. 23 they could never take the place of public schools, which should have the support of the church not only for patriotic reasons, but 'for the sake of Christianity itself'." 28 Even though Catholics and Protestants agreed that education could not be divorced from religion, "Protestants would not allow the application of state funds except for the support of public education that was under the influenoe of Protestant Christianity. " 2® In 1876, President Grant addressing his remarks to the Grand Army of the Tennessee, in a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, established a national tone regard­ ing the separation of education and religion. He said: Encourage free schools and resolve that not one dollar appropriated for their support shall be appropriated for the support of any seotarian schools. Re­ solve thatnefther the state nor the nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child grow­ ing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the ohurch and the state forever separated. 27 National devotion to the secular public school was so strong that the following year the House of Representatives proposed a constitutional amendment which would have prohibited the teaching of the "particular creed or tenets of any religion, or antireligious sect, organization o r denomination other than the reading of the Bible.'' 28 Although this resolution failed to pass the Senate, national sentiment generally would have applauded the amendment. During the last 100 years of American history one can trace the gradual 26. Ibid, p.t 413. 26, Costanzo, op. c it., p. 186, 27, President Ulysses S. Grant, as quoted by Leo Pfeffer, Church. State, and F ree­ dom. Boston, The Beacon P ress, 1953, pp. 288, 289. 24 evolvement of the public schools from religiously oriented, to non-sectarian, to completely secularized institutions. As religion waned and secular and civic functions in the community, state, and nation increasingly received more attention, the public school program and purposes mirrored the objectives and philosophies of adult society. America was transformed from a primarily agrarian to an al­ most completely industrialized society. The evolvement of large cities had precluded religious uniformity in most locales. Necessity has compelled state and national involvement in education, and the sectarian differences in almost all communities have dictated an education for the masses which is non-sectarian in nature, and devoid of explicit religious teachings. Cubberly quotes S. W. Brown in explanation of the secularization of America's public sohools: Differences of religious belief and a sound regard on the part of the State for individual freedom in religious m atters, coupled with the necessity for centralization and uniformity, rather than hostility to religion as suoh, lie at the bottom of the movement toward the secular school, 29 I agree with Brown, but his explanation is incomplete. Americans are not hostile to religion as such, but Protestants have been fearful of and hostile to Roman Catholicism. As a result they "were destined finally to destroy what they had originally sought to preserve - religious instruction in the public schools," ^ The public school system as it has developed throughout the years, and indeed as it has continued in some parts of our country up to this time is essentially a Protestant school system. Therefore it is not surprising that until this decade (when the U. S. Supreme Court declared Bible reading and prayer in the sohools to be unconstitutional) Bible reacting as a devotional exercise was commonly accepted as part of the public school program. 29. Cubberly, op. c it., p. 173. 30. Jozgenson, op. c it., p. 414. At the same time, "the idea that no public funds should go to support competing schools, notably parochial or religious schools, is another distinctive aspect of Protestant thinking. " 31 This policy of public support for public schools only was a policy forged by a predominately Protestant society, fearful of the Catholic minority, whose growth it aimed to curtail. The victory obtained by the lobbyists of the last century for the various amendments to the State Constitutions forbidding aid to seotarlan sohools is possibly the most dramatic example in the nation's history of legislation through collective national anxiety. The anxiety grew out of fear that the nation's unity would not be secure, that the Protestant nature of the oountry might diminish and that European languages and oustoms might persist and create certain cultural 'pockets' within the land. The 'anti-aid' amendments, in which most Protestant groups acquiesced, gave a type of monopoly on education to the State.32 But since the middle of this century the ecumenioal movement, coupled with the growth in size and Influenoe of Jewish and Catholio minorities has indicated that the demise of the so-called Protestant era in American history is taking place. Public schools oan no longer embody just the Protestant ethos. stead appears to be the ascendance of American religious pluralism. In Its This in turn will undoubtedly have an affect on church-state relations as they pertain to education. Court deolsions favorable to the granting of aid to the nonpubllo sohools in the 60's indloates that perhaps a new day has dawned in American eduoational history. 31. Paul G. Kauper, Churoh and State; Cooperative Separatism. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 60, Nov., 1961, No. 1, p. 2. 32. Robert F. Prinan, Religion. The Courts, and the Puhlio Policy. New York Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company, 1963, p. 41. ' 26 B. Hlatory of Federal Aid to Nonpublic Schools The United States, instead of developing a single national system of education, has acquired as many systems as there are states. Public education came under the province of the states via the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the federal government. Despite the fact that education has become a responsibility of the respective states, the federal government has always encouraged the expansion and improvement of education in the nation. From the earliest days in our national history it has aided in the establishment of sohools and colleges. Even before the adoption of the Constitution, the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787 established a policy of disposing of federal lands to encourage edu­ cation. Congress on a number of ocoasions, early in the history of our nation, granted land to both public and nonpublic religiously oriented institutions. Although the federal government has granted considerable assistance to private and church related colleges and universities, the history of aid to the nonpublic elementary and secondary schools is extremely sparse. In fact prior to 1844 the only federal assistance to reach nonpublio elementary and secondary sohool children was noneducational child welfare benefits. During the first half of the nineteenth century Congress granted some money directly to the states in an effort to subsidize education. These grants were in the form of aid to education in general. However "a ll permanent programs since the Morrill Act of 1862 have been for the purpose of supporting some specialized eduoa­ tional activity. " 33 Pfeffer claims that efforts to obtain federal funds for specialized educational programs have been relatively successful, while efforts to obtain monies for general education have been a "dism al failure" primarily beoause specialized 33. Leo Pfeffer, Church. State, and Freedom. Boston. The Beacon P ress, 1963, P. 480. 27 education proposals have been able to avoid the bitter controversies which have marked attempts to obtain aid for elementary and secondary education in general, The primary obstacles which have prevented the enactment of more legislation beneficial to elementary and secondary school children appear to be aid to par­ ochial schools, racial segregation, and fear of federal control. And the most bitter of these controversies, and the one which appears to remain unsolved, is the place of nonpublic schools in a program of federal aid. During World War Za large number of young men were rejected by the military because they were illiterate. This dramatically demonstrated to the nation for the first time, that the federal government, as well as the states, has a responsibility for the education of all its children. As a result in 1918 and again in 1923 bills were proposed for the establishment of a department of eduqc cation in order "to encourage the states In the promotion and support of eduoation. " Both bills failed, as did subsequent attempts in the 1920's and 30's. Finally in 1944 as a result of World War n , congress passed the G. I. Bill of Bights which i paid the education costs of veterans who elected to return to school. They re­ ceived vouchers which were redeemable in any school of their choice. It is little known that the "federal government paid the eduoation costs of 4,364,000 veterans in public, private, and church-related elementary and secondary sohoolB. And, moreover, few people know that the government gives grants of $110 a month for the education of war orphans who are attending church-related high sohools." qo Since 1944 congress has passed the following acts whioh have granted accom­ modations to the nations1 nonpublic elementary and secondary school children. 34. Ibid, p. 481. 35. Ibid, p. 482. 36. Virgil C. Blum, A Review: JFK and Freedom in Education. Huntington, Indiana, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., No. 249, p. 17. All have been enacted by applying the doctrine of the privacy of secular effects, with the conviction that such federal aid benefits the student rather than the institution which he attends. 1. National School Lunch Act <1946). Funds made available for free noon-day lunches. 2. G.L Bill of Rights (1952). To benefit veterans of the Korean War with basically the same provisions that were specified in 1944. 3. National Defense Education Act (1958). Nonpublic schools received federal loans for improving the teaching of science, mathematics, and foreign languages. 4. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). The first three titles of this five title act make provisions for the nonpublic sohools. Title I - Provides remedial, therapeutic, and health services to the educationally deprived in low-income areas. Title n - School library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials loaned to students and teachers through the local public school district offices. Title m - Supplementary educational centers and servioes suoh as counseling, remedial instruction, school health servioes, mobile equip­ ment, visiting teachers, e tc ., all designed to attack eduoational depriv­ ation and to improve the quality of instruction. Many educators have hailed the 1965 Act as a major breakthrough in the federal government's long and frustrating history of attempts to support elementary and secondary schools. Time magazine stated that President JohnBon "avoided the mistakes of his predecessors and produced an ingenious bill that neatly diffused the explosive is s u e s ," 37 especially those which have been traditionally ignited when nonpublio sohool children benefit from public funds. The federal government, in addition to assistance already cited, aids the nonpublic schools via tax benefits and preferments. This tax relief is nondisorlm- inatory and applies equally to all sohools whether public o r private. The govern­ ment also aids non-public sohools by allowing supporters who give them money to deduct the contribution from their taxable income. 37. "Time E ssay ," Time Magazine. Vol. 85, April 30, 1965, p. 44. 29 Even though the federal government has to date spent a minimum to assist elementary and secondary schools it appears very likely that it will be making proportionally larger contributions in the future. The failure of many local communities to provide adequate funds, and spiraling costs will undoubted­ ly precipitate a national concern for the welfare of education. If the federal gov­ ernment accepts a larger role in eduoation, Congress will probably enact legis­ lation which includes the nonpublio sohools. Precedent has been established by spending public hinds to achieve secular purposes through the eduation of all children in America's schools. C. History of State Aid to Students Attending Nonpublio Schools in Michigan Michigan's first schools were private and parochial. After the IndianB, the first inhabitants were French Catholics. Later Protestants from New England and New York oame to live in this territory. Both the Catholics and the Protes­ tants were convinced that the education of children was the responsibility of the churches and their ministers. When in 1837 Michigan was organized as a state, and land grants were set aside for public schools, eduoation came to be consid­ ered a function of the state rather than the church. However, the public sohools continued to offer religious instruction well into the 20th century. The diversity of religious denominations which characterized Michigan's populace, already early in her histozy, foretold the operation of both publlo and nonpublio sohools in the state. As early as 1876 there were 170 private and parochial sohools with an enrollment of 8,033 students. However "the statistios of this year as well as of the succeeding years were admittedly unreliable and incomplete, as it was diffloult for the state superintendent to obtain accurate 38. W. Maurice MoLean, The Constitutional and Legal Basis for Undivided School Support and Current Practice in Michigan. Ann Arbor, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1950, p. 11. 30 information. Thus in 1884, the report showed 296 schools, with 636 teachers and 27,130 pupils, while the 1889 report showed an enrollment of only 18,107. While such an improbable decrease may prove the unreliability of the Information, even the lowest figures indicate a sizeable number thus educated." 39 By 1900 approximately nine per cent of Michigan's sohools were nonpublio. Knauss and Starring cite several reasons for the rapid rise of private and paroohial schools near the turn of the century. 1. Immigrants who have been coming to this country after the Civil War de­ sired to have their children attend schools in which (th eir) language was used. 2. The church felt an educational duty towards these thousands of new citizens, and the newcomers looked upon the church-centered sohools as a means of retaining religious and cultural heritage. 3. Another important reason for the spread of the religiously oriented schools was the unwise aotlon taken by the Detroit Board of Education in 1892, when it established a policy to hire only teachers who had attended public schools. This raised a furor of opposition, as it was regarded as a body blow at all private schools. Although the policy was modified later, the action left a long-lasting susplolon in the minds of the leaders of the parochial schools that the public schools were antagonistic to them. 4. In September, 1896, the (Detroit) board purchased four thousand copies of the book, Readings from the Bible, and ordered it to be read In all sohools fifteen minutes each day. Protestant denominations as a rule favored the measure, while the opposition consisted of Catholics, Jews, socialists, and free thinkers. Supported by acting mayor George Beck, they brought suit against the board on the ground that the action was unconstitutional. Although the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jthe board in 1898, that body ordered the removal of the books not in use, Michigan's educational system was basically framed in three of her Con­ stitutions, 1835, 1860, and 1908, and in the first and second reports of the state of 39. James Knauss and Chas, Starring, "Miohlgan Search for Educational Standards," Vol. n of History of Eduoation in Miohlgan. Lansing, Miohlgan, Michigan Historical Commission, 1968, p. 147. 40. Ibid, pp. 149, 150. 31 Michigan's first Superintendent of Public Instruction, Rev, John D. Pierce. His educational philosophy has been referred to as the " . . . educational constitution of the Commonwealth," 41 He and Isaac E. Crary were educational crusaders who should be credited with the pioneer work of forging the public school system in the state. Both men were members of the Constitutional Convention of I860, and Pierce served as a member of the education committee. In his capac­ ity as state superintendent he continuously emphasized the importance of edu­ cation for the masses. He believed that "in an educated and virtuous community there is safety; the rights of individuals are regarded, and property Is respected and secure. It may safely be assumed as a fundamental principle In our form of government, that knowledge is an element so essential to its existence and vigor­ ous action that we can have no rational hope of its perpetuation unless it is generally diffused."42 Apparently Pierce's disapproval of the establishment of parochial and private schools can be traced "to his fear that they would serve to drain students and support away from public eduoation.'' 43 Before oitlng the specific acts which have afforded some financial aid to nonpublio schools it is appropriate to quote those articles of the Michigan Consti­ tution and the General School Laws which pertain to education in general and to nonpublic schools in particular. 41, Daniel Putnam, The Development of Prim ary and Secondary Publlo Eduoation in Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan, George Wahr Publisher, 1904, p. 35, 42, Ibid, p. 36. 43, Me Lean, op, c it,, p. 18, 32 The Constitution of the State of Michigan states: Article I - Declaration of Rights Section 4. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Mo person shall be compelled to attend, or against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any m inister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appro­ priated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief. Article VUI - Education Section 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good gov­ ernment and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. Section 2. The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of Its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin. 44 The General Laws of the State of Michigan provide: 1. The .Superintendent of Public Instruction is hereby given supervision of all the private, denominational and parochial schools of this state In such matters as is hereinafter provided. (388,551 M.S. A. 15, 1921). 2. No person shall teach or give instruction In any of the regular or ele­ mentary grade studies in any private, denominational or parochial sohool within this state who does not hold a certificate such as would quality him or her to teach in like grades of the public schools of the state. (388,533 M, S. A. 15, 1923). 3. The Superintendent of Public Instruction may conduct hearings, issue orders to comply, o r close nonpublio schools. If the order of the Superin­ tendent of Public Instruction . . . shall not have been obeyed within the time specified herein said superintendent. . . may close said sohool and prohibit the said person, persons, corporation, association or other agencies operating or maintaining such private, denominational o r paroohlal school from maintaining said sohool or from exercising any of the funotions hereunder until said order of the superintendent. . . has been complied with. The ohildren attending a private, denominational or parochial school refusing to comply with the requirements hereof after proceedings herein set forth shall be compelled to attend public sohools 44, James M, Hare (Secretary of State), The Constitution of the State of Michigan. Lansing, Miohlgan, Legislative Service Bureau, 1963, pp. 7, 36. 33 or approved private, denominational or parochial school under the pro­ visions of the Compulsory Education Act, the same being Act. No. 200 of the Public Acts of 1905, as amended. (388,554 M.S.A. 15, 1924). 4. The Superintendent of Public Instruction . . . shall have authority at any time to investigate and examine into the conditions of any school op? erating under this act as to the matters hereinbefore set forth and it shall be the duty of such school to admit such superintendent^. . . to submit for examination its sanitary condition, the records of enrollment of pupils, its courses of studies . . . and the qualifications of its teachers. Any re ­ fusal to comply with provisions herein on the part of such school or teach­ er shall be considered sufficient cause to suspend the operation of said school after proceedings taken as stated in Section 4 of this act. (388,655 M.S.A. 15, 1^25). 5. Nothing in this act contained shall be construed so as to permit any parochial, denominational, or private school to participate in the distribu­ tion of the primary school fund. (388,557 M. S.A. 15, 1927). ' 6. In the following cases, children shall not be required to attend the public schools: (a ) Any child who is attending regularly and is being taught in a private, parochial or denominational school whioh has complied with all the pro­ visions of this act and teaches subjects comparable to those taught in the public schools to children of corresponding age and grade, as determined by the course of study for the public sohools of the district within which such private, denominational or parochial sohool is located. (340,732 M. S. A. 16, 3732). 7. It shall be the duty of the principal, or any other person or persons in charge of every private, denominational or parochial school, at the open­ ing of such schools and at such time as the superintendent or county super­ intendent of sohools hereinafter mentioned shall direot, to furnish to the superintendent of sohools of the district in which such . . . sohool is situ­ ated . . . , the name, age and grade of every ohild who has enrolled at such schools . . . (340,738 M.S.A. 15, 3738). 45 For more than one-hundred years Michigan's nonpublio schools have attempted to obtain public funds to assist in underwriting some operational costs. The first appeal for aid occurred in 1853 when "Michigan Cathollos asked for state money because they thought public sohools had a distinctly Protestant character. They specifically objected to remarks by Ira Mayhew, the Superintendent of Publio In­ struction who pushed hard for school Bible reading." These oonoerned 45. State Board of Eduoation, State of Michigan General Sohool Laws. Lansing, Michigan, Legislature Service Bureau, I960. 46. McLean, op. c it., p. 63. 47. Detroit F ree P ress. February 9, 1969, p. 16B. 34 Catholic parents appealed to the state legislature for a fair share of the tax dollars* They requested the state to "share the school funds so that the taxes they paid would assist in the support of the schools of their choice,1,48 This appeal produced a bill, but it was defeated, and the request for aid to nonpublio schools did not receive serious attention again until the twentieth century. Not only had the nonpublic schools been unsuccessful in obtaining aid, but on several occasions opponents of parochial schools have expended great efforts In an attempt to close them. Michigan's nonpublio schools absorbed bitter attacks in 1920 and 1924 when certain forces sought to outlaw all of the state's private and parochial schools. During World War I antagonisms had been built up and produced a national revival of the Klu Klux Klan, whose prime motive was to destroy the Catholic power structure in America,49 The attempt to abolish the nonpublio schools of Michigan in 1920 was spearheaded fay the Wayne County Civio Association. The Michigan legislature blocked the association's bill, which provided for a popular vote on an amendment to the constitution. Proponents of the bill finally obtained the requisite 10 per cent of eligible voters to sign petitions in support of an amendment, which was placed on the ballot for the November, 1920 election.60 This amendment read in part: All residents of the State of Michigan between the ages of five and sixteen years shall attend the public school in their respective districts until they have graduated from the eighth grade; provided, that in districts where the grades do not reach the eighth, all persons herein described in such districts shall' complete the course taught therein.51 48. McClean, op, c it,, p. 162. 49. Ibid, p. 163. 60. Donald W. Disbrow, "Sohools for an Urban Society", Vol. m of History of Eduoation in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Historical Commission, 1968, p. 87. 61, As quoted in Thomas F, Lewis, A Study of Attempts to Abolish Private and Parochial Education by Constitutional Amendments in 1920 and 1924. Detroit, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1962, p. 9. 35 A comparable amendment was adopted In the state of Oregon in 1923 but was CQ declared unconstitutional in the famous Pierce case two years later, 06 Catholics, Lutherans, Christian Beformed and other non-public school supporters banded together to oppose the amendment, and many administrators in both the public and private schools openly expressed strong objection to the proposed anti-parochial school bill. In July, 1920, the state attorney general announced that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional. But in Ootober the state supreme court decided that neither it nor the attorney general could pass on Its constitutionality until it was adopted. In a state referendum the amendment was defeated by a vote of 610,699 to 355,817,53 As a result of the heated debates regarding the operation of the nonpublio schools, Mr. Delos Fall, a former state superintendent of schools, contended that the state department of public instruction could legally supervise private and parochial schools. Some leaders agreed, but others believed he was in error. His opinion nevertheless precipitated the interest of Lansing eduoational officials who represented all of the state public sohools. Together they success­ fully worked for the passage of the Dacey Bill, which was passed into law in 1921. This bill, which was previously cited, provided for the supervision of private, denominational, and parochial sohools by the State Superintendent of Publlo Instruction. Neither the deolBive defeat of the amendment in 1920, nor the passage of the Dacey Bill quelled the nonpublio sohool opponents. Many of them doubted that the parochial sohools were under sufficient state control. Another amend­ ment was proposed in 1924. This time the private and paroohlal sohools formed an association to fight for their corporate lives. The Publlo Sohool Defense League championed the amendment, and onoe more the Klu Klux Klan was active. 52, Pierce vs. Society of Sisters of the Holy Name, 268 U.S. 510 (1926). 53. Disbrow, op. c it., p. 88. 64. Ibid, p. 89. 36 The usual crosses were seen burning in fields and on hilltops. On the Sunday before election, a Catholic parade of over 100,000 moved through downtown (Detroit) streets to Novin Field (the ballpark). Bishop Michael J, Gallagher presided over an impressive religious ceremony. Banners proolaimed: •Vote No If You Love American Freedom, Kill Bigotry.' Most urban news­ papers opposed the amendment. This time Catholics and Lutherans worked more closely together, and the vote was 760,571 to 421,472 against the amendment. More people in Michigan voted than in the presidential election in that year. 55 Since 1924 Michigan's nonpublic schools have made a number of unsuccess­ ful attempts to obtain public financial support. During the depression years most of die church-related schools were in dire difficulty, and some were forced to close, ' 'A number of bills authorizing some m easure of state aid were Introduced in the legislature during the sessions of 1933-34 and 1937-38 but did not pass. In 1945 and 1947 there were further unsuccessful attempts to secure state aid for nonpublic schools." In 1939 the Michigan legislature adopted Public Act 38, which stated that the school districts may provide transportation for nonpublic school pupils within the RQhool dUtriot, It permitted free transportation for private or paroohlal eohool students on a voluntary basis. Act 38 was amended in 1949 when the law was broadened to include nonresidents. However in 1955 Public Act 269 repealed the previous act and public transportation was again denied nonpublic sohool children. Two years later the legislature passed the School Aid Aot (No. 312), whloh permitted allotments to publlo school districts for the transportation of nonpublio sohool children. When in 1963 the " F a ir Bus Law" was passed, it required all sohool dis­ tricts operating free bus service to extend the service to nonpublio sohool students who were residents of the district. Senator Robert Vander Laan of Grand Rapids was the chief sponsor of the bill which to date has proved to be one of the larger in­ direct contributions of public aid to Michigan's nonpublio schools. 55. Ibid, p. 96. 56. Ibid, p. 96, 37 The Michigan Legislature passed two acts in 1965 which extended services to all school children. Public Act 341 was adopted to protect the public health of school children by providing health examinations and services on an equal basis to children attending public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. Act 343 authorized auxiliary services to children in both public and nonpublio schools. These services include health and nursing services; street crossing guards; speech correction; visiting teacher service for delinquent and disturbed children; diagnostic services for mentally handicapped children; consultant ser­ vices for emotionally disturbed children; and remedial reading. "The state now spends roughly $12 million a year in aid to nonpublic school students," ^ for this service. In 1968 the "Children's Education Bill" to provide state educational grants for the benefit of children in nonpublic schools, was introduced but no action was taken. However, a resolution was passed oalling for the establishment of a Joint Legislative Committee which was to conduct an in-depth study of the present status of the nonpublio sohools. In August this committee conducted five public hearings throughout the state, heard a total of 164 witnesses, and recorded reams of testimony. They have reported their findings and submitted recommendations to the 1969 Legislature. Time alone will tell, but it appears probable that Michi­ gan's 315,000 nonpublic school children will soon be the recipients of publlo financial aid. 57. Detroit Free P ress, February 9,. 1969, p. 16B. CHA PTER m RATIONALE FOR STATE AID TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS To give meaning to subsequent argumentation in support of public aid to nonpublio eduoation it is necessary initially for the author to identify his basic philosophical presuppositions as they relate to education, religion, and the function of government in a free pluralistic society. It would be highly pre­ sumptive to claim the capacity to comprehensively explain one's premises in a few succinct statements. At the same time a detailed treatise is neither necess­ ary nor warranted here. So the following is written as a brief philosophical po­ sition upon which the rationale for aid will be constructed. The education of children and young people is the process by which they are inducted into the complexities of their culture. It is the transmission of facts and opinions which are assimilated and become part of the person who re­ ceives them. "It is the means of making it unnecessary for each new generation to discover the a rt of living for themselves without benefit ‘of the experience of earlier generations." 1 Education is the quest for knowledge and truth. Facts, figures, beliefs, and attitudes are all learned in the eduoational process. In formal institutions education is the medium by which teachers guide the develop­ ment of persons. On the elementary and seoondary school level the author be­ lieves the prime purpose of the school is to assist students to find answers to three basic questions: Who am I? Where am I going? How do I get where .I'm going in a meaningful way? The student's real purpose in the educational milieu is to understand his being. The goal of the sohool is to help him reach that ob­ jective; in other words, the prime goal of eduoation is the shaping and maturing of man. 1, Philip H. Phenix, Eduoation and the Worship of God. Philadelphia, Penn., Westminster P ress, 1961, p. 14. 38 39 Education is all of this and more. It inevitably presupposes some patterns of faith whch in turn determine the character of what is taught and learned. Education is inextricably wed with one's religious commitment. It is impossible to engage in eduoational activities without referring to religious convictions. Education is one of the most comprehensive forms of human activity there is. It is not merely the communication of certain facts that are poured Into receptacles as water is poured into a glass. Education consists of ono generation's transmitting useful knowledge to the generation that follows it. It is highly moral action. It involves end­ less selectivity. It involves judgment after judgment after judgment. There are those who would deny the relatedness of religion and education, but both public and nonpublic school authorities acknowledge that religious and moral values buttress all educational objectives. The National Eduoation Association as prime spokesman for our nation's public sohools has ..‘said: The development of moral and spiritual values is basic to all other edu­ cational objectives. Education uninspired by moral and spiritual values is directionless , . . That eduoational purposes rest on moral and spirit­ ual values has been generally recognized in the public school system. The Eduoational Policies Commission has previously declared: 'Every statement of eduoational purposes, including this one, depends upon the judgment of some person or group as to what is good and what is bad, what is true and what is false, what is ugly and what is beautiful, what is valu­ able and what is worthless in the conduct of human affairs.' 3 It is self-evident that every sohool gives its children a moral and religious orientation. No teacher could say, for example, " I believe that ..man is good," without teaching explicitly o r implicitly what he means by "m an" and what he defines as "good". So all of education is housed within a value system of some sort, and the "eduoational process" is lived in the context of that system. Try as one might, it is virtually impossible to experience learning in a philosophical vacuum; it always takes place within the framework of one's value orientation, Eduoation is Intimately united with religion. 2, Joel Nederhood, "Our Nation's Sohools", a radio sermon printed in Religion and the Sohool. The Back to Qod Hour, Chicago, 1967, p. 69. 3. NEA, Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Sohools, 1961, p. 7. 40 Throughout the history of our nation the relationship of religion and education has been a much-debated subject. Today many Americans are deeply concerned about it. Because of the operation of both public and nonpublio schools, the topic is commonly divided into two sub-topics, namely, the place of religion in the public school, and the place of the nonpublic "religious" school in society. Even though I will dwell almost exclusively on the latter, the one sub-topic can hardly be discussed adequately without reference to the other. In both subjects we have the common denominators, education and religion. Earlier Xhad attempted a brief definition of education, and turn now to a consideration of the nature of religion. Religion connotes different things to different people. To some it Is a superstition; to .others it is a special valid act and belief. To still others it is a comprehensive life-orientatlon. 4 But basically all adults could embrace one of the above descriptions as an acceptable explanation of religion. For purposes of our discussion we can quickly discount superstition as an acceptable descrip­ tion because our nation and our respective United States have adopted, without dispute, the position that religion is neaessary to good government. Substituting superstition for religion in this context would make further consideration an absurdity, in a nation avowedly "Under God", A large segment of the American people believe that religion is a special­ ized type of activity which one praotices at special times and in special places. Religion for them is,"one kind of experience among many which can be either chosen or avoided, "® It is especially associated with formal ritualistic exercises conduoted in a churoh or synagogue. For most of the adherents of this view, "God" is the supernatural being with whom you make contact in a special way on particularized occasions. This perspective compartmentalizes religion as one 4. Philip H. Phenix, Philosophy of Eduoation. New York, Henry Holt and C o., 1958, pp. 77-82. 6. Ibid, p. 79. 41 among many facets of life's myriad experiences. As it relates to education! this view of religion would bring one to the conclusion that religion is a subject » which one could elect to either include o r exolude from the curriculum. But in and of itself it need not be related to the currioula. This view separates the sacred and the secular, and it tends to render re lig io n irrevelant to the other concerns of life. For the third group, religion is a world and life view which incorporates the totality of one's experiences, Nederhood describes this position in a few concise sentences. He says: "Religion consists in the deepest convictions of your person. Your religion is your honest, sincere conviction about who God is and who you are. Your religion is the state of belief that controls everything you g do. Even if you are an atheist, you are religious." From this viewpoint everyone has a faith of some sort, and that faith is not restricted to outward ex­ pressions, but is prim arily an Inward dedication. Supporting all of life's ex­ periences is a value system whloh provides the backdrop for decision making. No area of human endeavor, including; education, can be freed of religious mean­ ing. Consequently the home, the church, the school and every other instltuition through which eduoation ocours, communicates a value system based on a total view of the meaning of life and of the world. As it pertains to eduoation this definition implies that the curricula and all facets of the eduoational program are permeated with a value system, a particularized point of view, a religious dimension. No area or form of educational endeavor is void of religious meaning. Thus "one has no ohoioe as to whether or not he will deal with religion, for the 7 very act of choosing, no matter what the object, presupposes a guiding faith." 6. Nederhood, op. o it,, p. 69. 7, Phenlx, op, c i t ,, p. 81, 42 In summary the nexus between religion, morality and education is estab­ lished on the supposition that religion is pervasive of the whole man, that morality Is its first fruition and beyond limit in its scope, and that education is a process from which neither one nor the other can be excluded. To this third view of religion the author is committed, and his subsequent argumentation in support of aid for nonpublic school children is based on this same religio-philosophic presupposition. I turn now to a discussion of the function of government as it relates to education in a free democratic pluralistic society. Ours is a "nation of the people, by the people, and for the people", and government is established to serve the people. The education of children is the responsibility of their parents. However, parents in our culture have elected to delegate or "farm out" some of their edu­ cational responsibilities. Either by delegation or by default (in the case of negligent parents) government may rightly possess responsibility for the educa­ tion of its citizenry. Even though the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has long been considered as justification for the states' role as educator, it should be observed that those functions not specifically assigned to the federal government are the duties of the states or the people; by not specifying which, the fram ers of the Constitution made it easy for State governments to assume educational duties not willingly accepted by the people.8 Throughout history the state, the church, and the home have assumed responsibility for the education of children. To discuss the merits or demerits of each of these three institutions as the agencies for formal education is not necessary. However it is important to note that in the United States all three institutions are granted equal legal protection and the right of existence. In a pluralistic society parents elect to train their children in either public, parochial, or private schools. Freedom in a democracy contains opportunity to teach one's children in a way consistent with his own values and ideals as he elects toi do. 8. Norman DeJong, Eduoation in the Truth. Nutley, N. J . , Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing C o., 1969, p. 122. 43 In the American society, a pluralistic society of some two hundred million people, citizens have different ideals or values to which they are committed. It is inconceivable that these two hundred million people will all have the same views on education. Because of this It id essential that the independent or nonpublic school exist; for freedom requires alternatives from which to choose, including the alternative which is consistent with one's own commit­ ment. A person who has no choice is not free. Public education is a free choice only if alternative choices are available, and only if these choices dre available without economic penalty. Such freedom does not exist in the United States today. 9* In the oft-quoted Pierce case, the United States Supreme Court stated that "the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of thp state to standardize its children-by forcing them to accept Instruction from public schools only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nuture him and direct him and his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. " 10 This significant supreme court ruling implies that parents are responsible for de­ termining the type of education which their children are to receive. At the same time it does not deny the state a supervisory role, nor does it remove the re ­ sponsibility of educational institutions from their obligations to the public welfare. So parents have the primary right in the eduoation of their children. But at the same time the state has the right to establish minimum educational standards, whloh are required for good citizenship and the general welfare of the state and nation. Meanwhile, however, the parents retain the unquestionable right to say where and by whom their children shall be educated. Thus government in education fills a supportive role. The Michigan Consti­ tution states "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good govern­ ment and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall for­ ever be encouraged. " 11 Government encourages education by providing financial 9. John Vanden Berg, "Tax Support of Non-Publio Education and Freedom", The Reformed Review. Vol. 21, No. 4, June, 1968, p. 43, 10. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 610 (1925X 11. The Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article Vm, Section 1, 1963. 44 aid and by promoting conditions which are conducive to educational Improvement and the general welfare. It is generally understood in a democratic pluralistic society that government must be neutral to all its citizens} that is none must be treated with deference. Unfortunately this is not the case in the United States as it relates to the government ftnd education. Here the government has given preferential support to public schools, and has discriminated against the non­ public schools. In assessing this condition John Vanden Berg has aptly summar­ ized the consequences of the position taken by our government. Parents have the right to send their children to religiously-oriented schools, yet when they exercise this right they are deprived of all public educational benefits . . , Liberty at a price — this is not liberty. This is the suppression of liberty, A genuinely free society cannot impose on its citizens or demand from them, as a condition for receiving the benefits of public welfare legis­ lation, any philosophic or religious creed. To do so would be to ask one to violate his conscience and religious convictions. It places government in a position to control the thought and belief of the people. In the field of edu­ cation, the government, in effect says: 'Give up your notions that God is important in education, o r forfeit your rights to the educational tax dollar*. The foregoing statements concerning education, religion, and the functions of government serve as a basic rationale for financial aid to nonpublio school children. Subsequent material in this chapter will deal with specific arguments for and against the proposition that Michigan's nonpublic school children should be the beneficiaries of public financial aid from the state. The author will advance arguments in favor of aid, and will give rebuttal to arguments which oppose it. The order in which the arguments appear has no relationship to their weight or importance. They are merely cited in alphabetical sequence. 12. Vanden Berg, op. c it., pp. 43, 44. i' A. 45 COMPETITION The United States Chamber of Commeroe in 1966 issued a Task Force Report on Economic Growth and Opportunity which urged aid to nonpublio schools on the grounds that competition between America's school system would be beneficial to all schools. That report states: Competition with existing public school systems offers a promising means of Improving both public and private education* If all parents, at every income level could choose between sending their children to public schools and sending their children to approved private sohools attempting to attract and hold pupils, both publlo and private education would Improve as sohools attempted to attract and hold pupils. Business­ men should press for the fullest-possible consideration of proposals de­ signed to enhance competition in education. Looal, state and federal governments should consider legislation which would enable communi­ ties to adopt programs establishing a public-private option for all children. Universities and educational associations should sponsor symposiums to explore the advantages, appropriate procedures and possible pitfalls of establishing educational competition. 13 The task force apparently believes that competition Is healthy in eduoation as it Is in business and industry* Competition stimulates, motivates and encourages innovation in every other field of human endeavor. Why not in the educational marketplace? The suggestion is plausible. America needs competing educational systems. Currently, the competitive position of the nonpublic schools is like that of the oorner grocery store which trleB to oompete with well-supplied government owned and operated supermarkets that sell their mer­ chandise at an eighty or one hundred percent discount. No business­ man, no matter what the quality of his goods and the excellence of his services, oould long survive such a disadvantageous competitive situation. Yet this is preolsely the situation that non-public schools face today. In every other area of human endeavor we encourage competition 13. U. 8. Chamber of Commeroe Report, The Disadvantaged Poor; Education and Employment, Washington, D. C., Chamber of Commeroe of the United States, 1967, pp. 68, 69. 14, Vanden Berg, op. o it,, p. 44, 46 because of its inherent benefits. In fact the federal government has established anti-trust laws to preclude the evils of monopoly, and to abet competition in in­ dustry. Why then should the public school monopolize education where the potential for innovation and improvement is infinitely greater, and where the product is of incomparably more valuable? No one thing should be of greater concern to adult America than the health and welfare of the young. Why then a monopoly in edu­ cation where competition is the imperative prerequisite for encouraging improve­ ment, innovation, apd freedom of choice? A sound alternative to public education can be found in the nation's private and parochial schools, and if given financial aid they will preclude lethargy and enhance educational integrity in the public schools. Both public and nonpublic education would benefit from competition. B. CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENERAL WELFARE The nonpublic schools in Michigan perform a vital civic function when they provide thousands (315,000 in 1668-69) of children basically the same Instruction in "secular" subjects that is afforded in the public sohools. The constitution does not prohibit the state from paying for what it receives in service to children. If there were no private and parochial schools the Btate would have to pay for the secular instruction that children now receive in nonpublic schools. Viewed from a monetary point of view these sohools represent an annual tax relief of millions of dollars in the state, and billions across the nation. The Michigan School Finance Study of 1668 contains an extensive chapter regarding nonpublic schools in the state. Concerning the 'general welfare rationale' the report reads: 15, Leo Pfeffer, Church. State, and Freedom, Boston, Beacon P ress, 1953, p. 435, 47 It would seem a broad and legitimate public purpose, first of all, to conserve the scarce educational resources, human and material, represented in Michigan's nonpublic schools, for these schools perform a function that would otherwise have to be provided entirely at public expense. It would be ex­ tremely onerous and costly to replace the m aterials, facilities, and personnel of the nonpublic schools, especially in metropolitan areas where they serve more than twenty per cent of the student population, as in Bay City, Qrand Rapids, Saginaw, and Detroit, In addition, numerous nonpublic schools are under-utilized, including some inner-city Catholic schools whose erstwhile patrons have long since fled to the suburbs. When nuns stand ready to serve the poor and desks are unoccupied, the state could consider providing the finances to put these scarce, expensive capacities to use. Traditionally and historically the nonpublic schools have always been a part of the national educational establishment. Student credits from independent schools are accepted without question when they are transferred to state schools. Private and parochial schools iqay sue in the United States courts - - to wit the Oregon versus Society of Sisters case in 1925. Our nation and the respective states officially recognize nonpublic schools of any kind and on any level, as part of the national establishment. 17 Thus nonpublic schools are both de facto and de jure part of the educational establishment in the United States, and as such contribute to the general welfare. The nonpublic schools contribute to the general welfare in many ways, 18 some of which have already been cited. Further explication Is unnecessary, but one more example is warranted because the author considers it to be especially Important to the health of the nation. Two of the prime objectives of education are the development of morally responsible men and women, and preparation for 16. Donald A. Erickson, "Nonpublic Schools in Michigan11, J. Alan Thomas, e d ., School Finance and Educational Opportunity in Miohlgan. Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of Education, 1968, p. 282. 17. Leo R. Ward, Federal Aid to Private Schools, Westminster, Maryland, The Newman P ress, 1964, p. 23. 18. For an excellent treatment of this subject see Dr, J, Marion Snapper, "Con­ tributions of Independent Education", Daniel D. McGarry and Leo Ward, Educational Freedom. Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing C o ., 1966, pp. 103-121, 48 responsible citizenship. Even the public schools consider the inculcation of moral and spiritual values to be extremely important, 19 but because of the sanctions of the courts find it almost impossible to teach in any mean­ ingful way. Most nonpublic schools operate primarily because they can teach (without inhibition or restriction) a particularized value system and provide a religious orientation to life. It is hardly necessary to belabor the point that declining moral standards have affected adversely the stability of the family, the church, and the nation. Divorces, neglect of child training, a shaky loyalty to American ideals, crime and dishonesty of every stripe are too prevalent for comfort. Our modern society has largely failed to influence youth with Christian convictions or even with common every-day morality. Religiously oriented schools strive for moral instruction in depth. They believe that the morally responsible person cultivates a loyalty to his God, to his fellows, and to his country. As a consequence "responsible citizenship comes naturally to the morally responsible person. ** 21 Nonpublic re ­ ligiously oriented schools, because they stress prim ary loyalty to God, intensify the motivation for loyalty to their country. They aid democracy because they Inculcate the religious truths which are basic to democratic living. 19. National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, Educational Policies Commission. Moral and Spiritual Values in Public Schools. Washington, P .C .: The Commission, 1951. 20. Wm. Kramer, "Public Service of the Lutheran School", Wm. W. Brickman and Stanley Lehrer, Editors, Religion. Government, and Education. New York, Society for the Advancement of Education, 1961, p. 59. 21. Ibid, p. 60. 49 C. DISPROPORTIONATE BENEFIT TO CATHOLICS America is primarily a Protestant nation, and many Protestants still retain a fear and suspicion of the Roman Catholic Church, These people are re­ luctant to approve public funds for nonpublic schools because most are Catholic parochial schools. They further believe that the Cathollo schools could make the church more powerful. Maintaining these beliefs creates a defensiveness on the part of some Protestants and Jews who fear a danger to their own religious integrity and freedom. In response to such thinking it should be pointed out that it is unfair and inaccurate to equate the church with the school. Their functions are not the same and should not be intentionally confused. Catholics are a minority in our nation, but they nevertheless have as much right as any other religious body to maintain and propogate their convictions without threat or fear of reprisal. Increasingly more Catholic sohools are being operated by the laity, and the association of the clergy with the school systems is diminishing in every sphere - polioy making, administration, and teaching. Dr, Wm. Brickman, renowned author and educator, makes appropriate reply to those who protest aid to Catholic children, "If the Catholics will receive more benefits than other groupB, it will be because they have more sohools and more children. Protestant and Jewish sohools also may receive aid, slnoe the law cannot discriminate between one faith and another. " 22 Obviously aid to nonpublic schools, regardless of their religious affiliation, would be proportion­ ate to the number of students who are the recipients of the benefits. 22. William W. Briokman, "The Debate Over Publio Aid to Religious Sohools" in Brickman and Lehrer, op, c lt,, p. 134. 50 D. DIVISIVENESS Some opponents of nonpublio education contend that parochial schools divide American children along religious lines, and thus become a hindrance to cultural unity. In response to this allegation I think it should be noted that in 1969 the public school is no longer a tool for the Americanization of its oitlzenry. Will Herberg writing on this subject stated: Today the older emphasis of cultural unity and the older fear of divisiveness are not merely out of place; they oan well become an oppressive mark In the compulsive conformity that is increasingly the mark of our other-directed culture. Today the emphasis should not be upon unity, except of course the political unity of the nation, but on diversity. And in the effort to safeguard and cultivate diversity, the religious school has a significant role to play. 23 The charge of "divisivenesB" is something whioh Is difficult to measure objectively, but fortunately reference can be made to two rather oonvlnoing studies made from substantive research regarding the effects of Catholio schooling on citizenship. Peter and Alice Rossi, combining data gathered in Florida and in several New England states, reached the following oonolusions: We could find no evldonoe that parochial sohools tend to alienate individual Catholics from their communities. Paroohlal school Catholios are as involved in community affairs as anyone else of comparable occupational position. Furthermore, the oholoe of paroohial-sohool education is apparent­ ly not so much a rejection of the publio sohools as a ohoioe of something qualitatively different. It would appear that an improvement in the publio sohools would not materially affeot their attractiveness to Catholios, for the greater pull of Catholio sohools is based on religious qualities which the public sohools have deliberately avoided . . . . We have been unable to find that paroohial-sohool Catholios are very different from other Catholios,24 In a more reoent national study, Peter Rossi and Andrew Qreeley reaohed the following conclusions: i In adulthood, subjects who had reoeived an entire twelve years in Catholio elementary and secondary schools were no less likely than equally devout Catholics who had been eduoated in publio sohools to ohoose non-Catholics as their three best friends. The kind of school attended