APPENDIX A CURRENT EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL IN ADA, PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, BY STATE 1 Includes expenditures for area vocational schools and junior colleges. Source: National Education Association, Research Division, Estimates of School Statistics, 1961-62. Research Report 1961-R22. Washington, D.C.: the Association, 1961. p. 29, 31. National Education Association, Research Division. Estimates of School Statistics, 1970-71. Research Report 1970-R15. Washington, D.C.: the Association, 1970 .p. 37. [This table is taken from Berke and Callahan, "Inequities in School Finance 46 (1971) a paper presented at the 1971 Annual Convention of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and reprinted by the Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, United States Senate, 92nd Cong. 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1972)] 83-453-72-pt. 3-9 For New Jersey data are for fiscal year 1969 since fiscal year 1970 data were not yet available. For Montana and Nebraska data are high and low of average for districts grouped by size. Data are not fully comparable between States since they are based entirely on what data the individual State included in their expentirure per pupil analysis. Source: State reports and verbal contacts with State officials. For New Jersey data are for fiscal year 1969 since fiscal year 1970 data were not yet available. For Alaska data represent revenue per pupil. For Montana and Nebraska data are high and low of average for districts grouped by size. For North Dakota data are average of expenditures of all districts within a county. Data are not fully comparable between States since they are base dentirely on what data the individual State included in their expenditure per pupil analysis. Source: State reports and verbal contacts with State officials. Hawaii is the only State that finances education on a statewide basis and consequently does not have the inequities associated with local financing. [This table is taken from Berke and Kelly, "The Financial Aspects of Equality of Educational Opportunity". (1971) reprinted by the Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, United States Senate, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (Comm. Print 1972 1 APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF SELECTED TAX RATES AND EXPENDITURE LEVELS IN SELECTED COUNTIES, 1968-69 The relationship of district wealth and highest tax effort (Texas school districts categorized by equalized property value and tax rate required to generate highest yield in all districts) Categories, market value of taxable property per pupil Above $100,000 (10 districts) Tax rate needed to equal highest yield (per $100) $0.64 Source: Policy Institute, Syracuse University Research Corporation, Syracuse, New York. APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF PUPIL/TEACHER RATIO IN SELECTED CENTRAL CITIES AND SUBURBS, 1967 1 1 Taken from the Urban Education Task Force Report (Wilson C. Riles, chairman), New York, N.Y.: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1970. Source: Gerald Kahn and Warren A. Hughes, "Statistics of Local Public School Systems, 1967," National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Office of Education. [This table is taken from Berke and Kelly, op. cit. supra note at 10.] STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. ROONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS Mr. Chairman, and all the distinguished members of this great Committee, I am pleased to be able to present my reasons for introducing and supporting H.R. 14150 which I introduced on last March 28th. This bill provides Federal income tax credits for individuals for tuition paid for dependents in private, nonprofit elementary and secondary schools. The tax credit which is provided by my bill would be 50 percent of the amount of tuition paid for each dependent up to a maximum of $500 per dependent. The tax credit would cover only tuition and would not cover other costs such as transportation, meals and books. Mr. Chairman, this bill has two purposes. First, it is aimed at relieving the terrible financial burden facing so many parents today and at the same time averting the almost certain collapse of private and parochial school systems all over the country. Educational costs, both public and private are soaring. The Office of Education estimates that the costs of elementary and secondary education this year will be about $56 billion--a startling increase of $2 billion over last year's costs. This year 51.4 million pupils will attend primary and secondary schools and of that total 5.2 million will be in parochial and other private schools. More than 220,000 persons will be engaged in teaching in private and parochial elementary and secondary schools. As education costs climb many parents are finding themselves facing an impossible burden of supporting the public school system through taxes and a private school through over higher tuition costs. The private and parochial schools on the other hand are at the point where if they raise their tuition to meet costs they will drive away students whose families do not have the financial means to pay the tuition. The threat of the collapse of the private and parochial school systems is a very real one and if it came about it would place an intolerable burden on an already overcrowded public school system. In New York State, according to the latest available figures, there are 841,378 students in 1,967 nonpublic schools at the elementary and secondary level. If these students were suddenly dumped into a system which already has over 3.4 million students it would result in physical and financial chaos. Using estimates arrived at by the Office of Education, it would cost New York almost three quarters of a billion dollars to absorb the pupils now enrolled in private and parochial schools and I see no way that the taxpayers of New York could assume this extra burden on top of the already smothering taxation they now live with. There is no question that the public school system is and should remain the backbone of our education system. But at the same time if something is not done immediately to help the private and parochial schools around the country they will die and if they do, the education of all our children and their children will suffer greatly. I believe that this bill would provide necessary relief to parents and to private school systems by allowing them to charge fair tuitions and thus grow to fit the need for them. I think that virtually every taxpayer in the country would receive, directly or indirectly, some benefit from this bill. I urge my colleages of the distinguished House Committee on Ways and Means to act rapidly in this matter. Mr. Chairman, I once again would like to thank you for allowing me to present my views in this matter. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be able to present this statement before your Committee to indicate my wholehearted support for legislation which would provide Federal income tax credits to parents who pay tuition for their children in private, non-profit schools. I sponsored one of these bills before you, H.R. 15325, which would allow a maximum credit of 50 percent of tuition paid, up to a limit of $400 per dependent. This is similar to bills I have sponsored in previous years. It is encouraging that they are now being given serious consideration. Mr. Chairman, I have long believed that this is probably the most equitable and effective way of relieving the tremendous financial burden now experienced by the parents of children attending these schools. It is also a measure which requires urgent action if we are to save these needed educational institutions. Previous testimony before this Committee established the fact that a tenth of the children of this country are being educated in non-public schools. This amounts to over five million children in elementary and secondary private and parochial schools. It is obvious to me and the majority of educators in this country that these schools are of vital importance to the future of our educational system as a whole. The urgency for action is due to mounting pressures which have caused a sharp decline in non-public school enrollment during the last decade. During a time of rapidly growing public school enrollment, private and parochial school enrollment has actually declined by 8.1 percent. Parochial schools suffered the most with a drop of 17 percent. During the last few years, Catholic schools have been closing at a rate of one a day. The major reason for this decline is economic. The tremendous rise in the cost of living and education has hit the schools and the families of the students very hard. Unfortunately, direct aid to the schools themselves has encountered Constitutional problems. As a matter of fact, I am not too sure direct aid is the answer, even if Constitutional. The eventual strings from the government would defeat our purpose. A tax credit to the parents, on the other hand, should face no such difficulty since the individuals, not the institutions, are the beneficiaries. IMPORTANCE OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS I should like to address myself now to the question, "Are the non-public schools worth saving?" Mr. Chairman, in my mind the answer is unquestionably, yes! The private and parochial schools in the United States provide critically important competition to the public school system. Private and parochial schools are freer to experiment with new methods of education. Furthermore, they provide a yardstick against which to measure the quality and performance of public schools. In many cases, they also provide an alternative approach to the building of character and the disciplining of mind and manners. Our country has long been proud of its diversity, and has recognized the value of offering as many alternative roads to individual growth and problem solving as possible. We have realized that only in this way can the best alternative be found for each situation, problem or individual. Private and parochial schools are essential to preservation of diversity in our educational system. In conclusion, I would like to point out that not only would this country lose socially and educationally, should these schools disappear, but each community would lose economically. At the moment the parents of the children attending non-public schools are willing to pay extra to educate them. If the schools close, everyone will have to pay more taxes to accommodate these children in the public school system. In many communities where this has already occurred, the tax rate has skyrocketed. New schools, materials, and teachers cost money. In sum, then, non-public schools are beneficial to our educational system. They are worth saving for social, educational and economic reasons. And this legislation is a fair, Constitutional, and viable method of assisting in their survival. I strongly urge favorable action by this Committee. Thank you. JOINT STATEMENT OF STATE SENATOR GARY BYKER, HUDSONVILLE, MICH., AND JACK ZONDAG, GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. Appreciation EQUITY AND JUSTICE IN EDUCATION Honorable members of the committee, we wish to express our gratitude for the privilege of submitting to you a statement of our views relative to the merits of H.R. 16141, the "Public and Private Education Assistance Act of 1972.” We are fully supportive of the provisions of H.R. 16141 and are deeply grateful to Congressman Carey and Chairman Mills for sponsoring this measure. Our position in favor of this measure is grounded on the guaranteed religious freedom clause of the "Establishment Clause" which provides that "Congress shall make no law. prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Our rationale is based largely on the works of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Thesis We believe that a thorough analysis of the positions held by Jefferson and Madison prove that the public school today holds a position in American life |
