Slike strani
PDF
ePub

the causes and consequences of declining enrollments in the nation's nonpublic schools.

The Center for Field Research and School Services at Boston College, one of America's leading Catholic universities, recently completed a 2-year study on the crisis in nonpublic education for the President's Commission on Schoci Finance. The researchers could find no evidence that parents are leaving nonpublic schools, and particularly Catholic schools, because of increasing costs. In the summary volume of their 2,500 page report, the authors of the study state that ". one must be naive, uninformed, or dishonest to depict the current enrollment decline as fundamentally a consequence of cost increases." According to the study, the major causes of the enrollment declines in Catholic schools are: 1. A major outmigration of Catholics from the central cities to the suburbs where the public schools are in high repute and parochial schools are not as widely available.

2. Changing attitudes among Catholics regarding the perceived benefits of public vs. parochial education.

3. The recent decline in the birth rate which has accentuated enrollment losses and made them seem more serious than they really are.

4. Fragmented and inefficient mechanisms within the Church for raising revenues for the support of the parochial school system.

One of the myths being fostered by some proponents of aid to nonpublic schools is that private school closings will impose substantial fiscal burdens on the public school systems due to the resultant increases in public school enrollments. A careful analysis of enrollment projections, however, will not substantiate this claim. Even if nonpublic school enrollments should decline by 50 percent between 1970 and 1980, total public school enrollment in 1980 will be lower than it was in 1970. The leveling-off of school enrollments between now and 1980 simply reflects the declining birthrate that has prevailed in this country since the mid 1960's.

STATEMENT OF RABBI BERNARD GOLDENBERG, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, TORAH UMESORAH, NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR HEBREW DAY SCHOOLS

I have the honor to represent the National Society for Hebrew Day SchoolsTorah Umesorah. Our appreciation is hereby extended for this opportunity to present the position of the American Hebrew Day School movement on the educational needs of the Seventies. The movement comprises some 400 elementary and secondary schools throughout the states which offer programs of instruction in both the secular and religious areas of study.

Founded in 1944, in order to foster the growth of Hebrew Day Schools in America, we number at present, as mentioned, some 400 Hebrew Day Schools in the United States, of which 270 are elementary while 130 are secondary schools. These schools are located in 150 cities in 32 states from coast to coast. The aggregate student enrollment of these schools is 82,000.

In addition to being directly involved in founding new Hebrew Day Schools, we also service all of the schools in the movement through the provision of administrative and teaching personnel, supervisory services, curricular programs, textbook materials, loans and grants, educational aids and literature. We sponsor five (5) Teacher Training Institutes in New York, Baltimore, Chicago and Cleveland respectfully, as well as a National Association of Hebrew Day School Principals and a National Association of Hebrew Day School P.T.A.'s. Our national body is acknowledged to be the representative agency of the Hebrew Day School movement in America.

Our type of nonpublic school has the objective of providing intensive instruction in both the area of secular, general education and that of Jewish religious education, and it seeks to accomplish both on highly exacting levels. It strives to inculcate in its pupils a rich knowledge and fervent love of their American heritage and homeland, a firm sense of civic responsibility and an enduring commitment to the pursuit of academic excellence in the sciences and the humanities. side by side with a high regard for ethical norms and abiding loyalty to the principles and precepts of the Jewish religious tradition. In essence, the Hebrew Day School is committed to the building of a synthesis between the values of Judaism and the best of American culture.

With reference to the achievements of the Day Schools, the scholastic standards maintained by these schools throughout the country and the subsequent

record of academic achievement of their graduates has been exemplary, and has won the enthusiastic approval of many public school educators as well. Amongst the graduates of Hebrew Day Schools, there are an impressive number of personalities who have won national and international renown in the professions, in academic and scientific endeavor, in the judiciary and in government service.

With reference to the General Studies Departments of the Day Schools, it should be noted that their curriculum is patterned after the course of study of the public schools, with cooperation frequently extended by local superintendents of schools. The teaching personnel in the General Studies Departments are often themselves public school teachers, and are of widely varying religious backgrounds.

It should be noted also, that while almost the entire movement is united in basic principle, the Hebrew Day Schools are most properly classified as private schools, since they are individually autonomous in operation. They are likewise maintained financially in part by payment of prescribed tuition fees, on the part of the parents of the pupils, and in part by voluntary contributions made by sympathetic individuals and groups. On the average, approximately 40% of the budgets are covered by tuition. The tuition rates are approximately $350-$600 per year, but in the large metropolitan communities, where the majority of these schools are found, a large percentage of the parents have very limited economic earnings, which makes them dependent on tuition grants should they wish to enroll their children in a Hebrew Day School. Since Day School parents consider both Day School religious instruction and the finest possible program of secular instruction as equally vital for their children, the economically underprivileged among them are faced by the agonizing choice of either failing to provide adequately for the religious education for their children, or of being driven into desperate financial straits when they seek to send their children to Hebrew Day Schools-whose standards are themselves jeopardized by unability to meet the constantly rising budgetary requirements imposed by the needs of our time.

As we all know, the Seventies is not just around the corner-it is already here. And the hour glass, ticking away relentlessly is introducing us rather quickly to the crowded and dramatic agenda of the Seventies.

One of the pressing items of the Seventies is that of students attending nonpublic schools.

Perhaps by concentrating our attention on a single area we can gain a better insight into the plight of the poor parents in the larger metropolitan areas who have chosen a nonpublic school for the public education of their children. In New York City 50% of the Jewish children attend Hebrew Day Schools. Nearly 120 of the 181 schools in this major city are located in poverty areas and about 35,000 pupils attend such schools in poor and lower middle class areas. With an educational institution such as the Hebrew Day School being the pivotal institution in the structure of the Jewish community-should it happen that Hebrew Day Schools in such areas will no longer be able to provide scholarships for the children of the poor and the lower middle class-the whole community will then be threatened. For at such a point parents of Hebrew Day School students, finding no available viable educational institution in their community, will then have to relocate to another area for the sake of their children's education. In the wake of this you have an accelerated flight from the city, a further emptying of the inner city, and urban relocation with all its attendant evils. And all because of a lack of freedom of choice in education. Thus years of investment of resources, will, perserverance and purpose will be crushed in record time because of the relocation of parents since the school is the pivot institution of the community. Such a decision deeply immersed in agony nullifies years of consecrated efforts and purposeful living. And what was once a colorful, polyglot neighborhood with its ethnic nuances and integration becomes that no more. And all for want of understanding of the plight of the poor parent who opts for nonpublic school education.

As parents, as Jews and as educators, deeply devoted to both education and educational excellence—we feel that a rethinking on this problem of Federal aid to education is long overdue. Ours is an age when the pursuit of education is vested with an unparalleled urgency. Can we in this urgency deny millions of children attending nonpublic schools responsible educational opportunities? Is the social good of our society served by an approach which looks the other way while these millions of children are then imperatively urged by our own society and its built-in tensions to pursue educational excellence?

Let us note with a full measure of certainty, we ask not for support of religious aims and purposes-for we are staunch believers in the principle of Church-State separation. We do, however, feel that Governmental concern should allow millions of citizens-in-the-making to share in a reasonable manner in the educational efforts of our great country. It is not the creed of the child which should be the focus of our concern but rather the need of the child.

Let me also discuss another basic facet of democracy which will need sharpening in the crowded agenda of the Seventies. Pluralism in education is the right to choose between educational alternatives without penalty. But if we are to have a pluralistic educational system, with all the good it implies, then such a system needs the financial encouragement of the state.

No less a group than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favored this approach when in its 1966 Task Force Report it recommended "the Federal government should consider legislation which would enable communities to adopt programs establishing a public-private option for all children”.

A financial penalty attached to the exercise of one's conscience is an infringement of free exercise, while the creative sense of shared purpose is the very greatness of a free people. There is no freedom of choice in education if parents have to pay substantial costs for educating their children, while free schools beckon them.

We, therefore, want to go on record as enthusiastically supporting legislation allowing tax credits for nonpublic school parents.

If we are to have pluralism in education. If we are to have the right to choose between educational alternatives without penalty then some way must be found to make such a choice viable and real.

Tax credits is one such way. Furthermore, such an approach does not come apart on the shoals of constitutional dilemmas. The problem of excessive entanglement of State and Church is also not present in the tax credit concept as there would also not be any need for increased government supervision and involvement. Surely the tax credit legislation now being considered meets all constitutional strictures and is in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its recent rulings on aid to nonpublic schools.

We, therefore, want to go on record favoring such legislation and urge the committee to move it along as soon as possible.

It would seem that the decades ahead are geared to the concept of educational alternatives. Such alternatives should be keyed to the preservation of the nation-but, likewise the nation should be keyed to the preservation of the educational alternatives. One without the other is barren rhetoric. And barren rhetoric neither builds nor preserves. We look to Congress and to the Government of the U.S. to build the new and preserve the old so as to be fruitful rather than barren, creative rather than rhetorical.

Thank you very much.

Hon. WILBUR B. MILLS,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., August 21, 1972.

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The attached letter from Sister Anne Finnerty, Superintendent of the Catholic School Department of Brownsville, Texas, is submitted for your information and for any consideration the committee members may afford it in connection with hearings on the subject.

Provided it is commensurate with the committee's policies I would greatly appreciate having Sister Anne's letter made an official part of the committee hearings.

With my thanks and kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

Attachment.

E. (KIKA) DE LA GARZA,

Member of Congress,

DIOCESE OF BROWNSVILLE,

CATHOLIC SCHOOL DEPARTMENT,
Brownsville, Tex., August 16, 1972.

Hon. E. (KIKA) DE LA GARZA,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As Superintendent of the Catholic Schools in the Rio Grande Valley I have had the unhappy duty to preside over the closing of two of our schools in May of this year. In the three years, 1968 to 1971, I was closely associated with the Catholic Schools here and saw six others close. There are only ten left and the future does not look very bright for some of these. But, there is some hope that they will survive. Some of that hope centers around the tax credit legislation currently in the Ways and Means Committee in Congress.

I am writing to urge you to support this legislation and to inform The Honorable Wilbur Mills of your position. I write on behalf of all of the people who depend on our schools here in the valley. I also know that there are many citizens who although they do not patronize non-public schools, still do not want to see them go out of existence. Such a calamity would lay an immense financial burden on all taxpayers, but even more, it would mean the end to meaningful freedom of education for those parents and children of the Valley who seek some alternative to a single unitary public school system.

Your support of this legislation will be applauded by all who are concerned with the future of non-public education.

Respectfully yours,

Sister ANNE FINNERTY, Superintendent, Diocese of Brownsville.

Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS,

BOARD OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL CONCERNS

OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH,
Washington, D.C., August 29, 1972.

Chairman, Ways and Means Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MILLS: On behalf of our Board I am writing you to express concern over provisions of H.R. 16141, legislation now pending before your Committee. We have no quarrels fundamentally with the bill's major thrust-an attempt, through matching federal funds, to readjust the inequitable distribution of public education monies incurred as a result of disparate property tax income within various school districts.

However, our concern is related to Title II of the measure which provides for tax credits for private school tuition. This section seems to stand in contradiction to Constitutional provisions against establishment of religion as well as to run counter to Supreme Court decisions in June of 1971 regarding federal entanglement in administrative procedures of private religious schools.

The position of The United Methodist Church on "Church-Government Relations" as declared by our General Conference of 1968 stated: "We do not support the expansion or the strengthening of private schools with public funds." (context enclosed) In addition, our own Board of Christian Social Concerns approved a policy statement in October of 1971 with respect to Educational Voucher Plans. It said:

"The Board of Christian Social Concerns opposes the voucher plan or a tax checkoff plan because: (1) it could encourage an administratively inefficient educational system; (2) it threatens to entrench poor children in segregated and inadequately supported ghetto schools; (3) it endangers the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state; and (4) it could act as a divisive force in the community."

Although a tax credit may be rightly differentiated from a voucher plan in terms of means, the next result of a rather direct subsidy of parochial schools is apparent. Furthermore, I should think substantial entanglement would be involved when it became necessary for the federal government to scrutinize the financial records of parochial schools in order to ascertain that tax credits were not being fraudulently obtained.

In no way do we mean to imply that private and parochial schools should not exist or be given strong financial support. Our objection is to using public funds for such purposes.

It will be greatly appreciated if you will include this letter in the written record of public testimony.

Yours sincerely,

Enclosure.

J. ELLIOTT CORBETT,

Director, Department of Church/Government Relations.

CONTEXT OF QUOTE

"We believe in the principle of universal public education and we reaffirm our support of public educational institutions. At the same time, we recognize and pledge our continued allegiance to the U.S. constitutional principle that citizens have a right to establish and maintain private schools from private resources so long as such schools meet public standards of quality. Such schools have made a genuine contribution to society. We do not support the expansion or the strengthening of private schools with public funds. Furthermore, we oppose the establishment or strengthening of private schools that jeopardize the public school system or thwart valid public policy."

"The United Methodist Church and Church-Government Relations in the United States of America," Chapter Three, page 8. Adopted by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church, May 1968.

STATEMENT OF THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA REGARDING TAX CREDITS FOR PAROCHIAL SCHOOL TUITION

The Jewish day school is a unique American institution. In other lands anu in other times Jewish schools taught only religious studies. The concept of a Jewish school spending half of its day on religious studies and the other half on secular studies, which is the way most day schools are structured, is the answer of the American Jewish community to the requirements of government and the demands of modern society concerning secular education.

As of June 1971 there were 417 Jewish day schools in the United States, 291 on the elementary level and 126 on the high school level, with a total enrollment of 80,000 pupils. In the New York Metropolitan Area alone, one out of every three children receiving any type of Jewish education was enrolled in a Jewish day school.

The public school system of today is not the same system that opened the door of opportunity to successive waves of immigrants. The parochial schools of today, with their increasing number of lay teachers and the liberalization of church attitudes toward other religious groups, are not the same as those of the past, which may have caused apprehension in the Jewish and general community. The myths of the past-that a public school child grows up to be more tolerant of and more at ease with people of different backgrounds and hence better equipped to take his place in a pluralistic American society; or that a public school education makes a person more liberal, whereas parochial school education make one more conservative-today stand discredited among social scientists who have studied the subject. On the contrary, a child grows into a more secure and tolerant adult when he is permitted to "find himself" in a school that is free from the intergroup tensions that are the hallmark of the public schools in our large cities. If monopoly is unhealthy in other areas of our society, then it is no different in education. In any age of soaring costs, unless private education receives government aid, it cannot survive except for the very rich. If the concept of cultural pluralism is to have any meaning at all, educational facilities must exist for the ethnic and religious groups in American society to transmit their cultures to future generations.

Contrary to the assertions of the majority, there is no question that parochial schools, by educating some six million pupils constituting about thirteen per cent of all school-age children, save our federal and state governments billions of dollars. It is obvious that it is cheaper for government to give parochial schools limited funds to stave off their closing than to find places for their pupils in the already overcrowded public school system.

In attempting to defend an outmoded concept of church-state separation, many advocate positions that may win points of logical structure and doctrinal con

« PrejšnjaNaprej »