(3) But our primary objection to this bill is based on our strong commitment to protect the principle of separation of church and state, which is basic to our system of public education. It is our firm conviction that separation of church and state is essential to the continued political and social health of this country. Accordingly, we oppose all proposals which would allow public funds to be used for private schools.

Last April, in his message on Special Revenue for Education, President Nixon stated:

Nonpublic schools bear a significant share of the cost and effort of providing education for our children today. Federal aid to education should take this fully into account. This proposal would do that by considerably broadening the authority for extending aid to students in non-public schools. Nonpublic school students would be counted in the reckoning of population for purposes of allocation, and all forms of educational services would be available to them.

It is apparent that S. 1669 could well provide substantial support to nonpublic schools a development which we deplore. Once the concept of Federal revenue-sharing is extended to include church schools we will have made a major departure from our basic doctrine of separation of church and state, and we may then expect to see further weakening of the wall of separation. To us the constitutional and historical safeguards of separation of church and state represent, not sterile legal doctrine, but important public policy—a policy which must not be diluted or otherwise weakened.

There is no doubt that public education needs strengtheningwith better planning, greater accountability, and greater financial support. This is true in every State and in every school district in the country. However the bill before us falls far short of meeting those needs, and, in our opinion, it carries within it the potential for great harm-both to education and to our society as a whole. We hope the committee will reject this proposal, therefore.

Thank you on behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women for the opportunity to appear before you to voice our concerns.

Senator DOMINICK. Mrs. Frieder, on behalf of the chairman and myself I want to express my thanks to you for coming back and presenting this testimony. I think it is extremely helpful.

First of all, I should say we have another vote on in a minute which is why Senator Pell just left. As soon as he gets back I will have to go again. I am not quite clear about the separation of church and state in connection with your opposition to the special revenue sharing. Am I reading it wrong in here? Is your comment related to the special revenue sharing bill or isn't it?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Yes; our comment was related to the special revenue sharing bill, particularly that aspect of it which would allow or which would bring into this act several acts which now are excluded from the provisions of ESEA, title I. As I understand, this bill as we read this bill, the provisions of ESEA title I with respect to nonpublic schools would be thus extended through this legislation to all the programs under this title.

Senator DOMINICK. Well, there is a provision in the bill as you know, referring to the provisions of State law which might prevent State agencies from allowing parochial students to participate in State funded programs, but it was my understanding, and I want to be sure that the record is clear on this, that under special revenue

sharing, we were not doing any more for private schools than is presently being done under title I where you can participate in a public school program. Am I wrong in this?

Mrs. FRIEDER. It is my understanding that the provisions of title I with regard to nonpublic schools would be extended in this legislation to the 32 other titles which will be consolidated, which as we see it, is extending the possibility of Federal funds being expended for nonpublic schools, in a variety of titles.

Senator DOMINICK. But in a variety of educational programs, not in religious programs.

Mrs. FRIEDER. Educational programs.

Senator DOMINICK. All right. We have had this tremendous difficulty with this church-state problem before, as you know, in all the elementary education and secondary education programs. We have usually included specific restrictions relating to assistance to a private school. We have tried to avoid that issue by saying that the children who are in parochial schools can participate in other programs if they want, thereby benefiting the child as opposed to the school. Does this not also follow in this bill?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Well, that is the public-benefit theory and as a matter of fact, looking at the results of 6 years of ESEA we see that the public-benefit theory in fact does result in assistance to the school, to private schools. Under section 7, subtitle B1 of the bill, I think you will find that the Secretary is given discretion to arrange by contract or otherwise for children enrolled in the private elementary or secondary schools within such State; that is, if the State constitution precludes such dispersal of funds, the Secretary is given discretion to arrange by contract or otherwise so that the children enrolled in private elementary or secondary schools within such States, will receive on an equitable basis, services similar to those provided from the funds made available to children in the public school.

In other words, should the State constitution of the individual State prohibit the dispersal of such funds to nonpublic schools, there is an escape clause.

Senator DOMINICK. Yes; I understood that but the escape clause is still related to the pupil as opposed to the school.

Mrs. FRIEDER. Mrs. Margolin would like to add something.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. Senator, I think one can interpret that any way one wants to. The point is that the aid is going to be given to the school because that is with whom the Secretary is signing the contract. He is not signing the contract with individual children; he is giving it to the school.

Senator DOMINICK. He would be signing a contract with the public schools in order to provide services for parochial school students, as I understand the bill.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. I am talking about the nonpublic schools. I am reading title VII.

Senator DOMINICK. So am I. I think that what they say in here is that the Secretary is to control the funds received under it but the equipment purchase will remain with the State and local education agency.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. I think the whole issue that we are constantly discussing, and this is not the first time, is, Is this a benefit to the child or to the school? The child is attending a school and when you are

signing a contract to give the money to the school to benefit the child, you are helping the school, I don't see how else one can interpret it. Furthermore, whatever moneys are given to nonpublic schools, no matter which way you interpret it, it is diverting funds from public schools. I think one can't escape that.

Senator DOMINICK. Let me suggest kind of a scenario here. Suppose one of the public high schools was giving a course in Russian and they were not giving the course at a neighboring private school. It is my understanding that they would be providing funds for the public schools which would permit private school students to come over there and participate in that Russian course. You wouldn't see anything wrong with that, would you?

Mrs. MARGOLIN. Well, if the children go to the public school we see nothing wrong in it. The whole thesis of Mrs. Frieder's testimony is that we are very strong supporters of the public schools and the public schools are in a financial crisis now, Senator Dominick, and I think you probably know that better than I do.

Senator DOMINICK. They sure are.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. Any funds that are diverted to other purposes is taking it away from the public schools. That is what we are very much concerned with.

SOURCES OF REVENUE

Senator DOMINICK. Mrs. Frieder, you know better than I do that over a majority of the school bond issues that have been voted on in the last couple of years have been defeated. This was true in Ohio. We have lost some in our own State, to our mutual sorrow, but it is a fact of life that people are not putting more bonded indebtedness into their tax structure if they can help it at this point, even for educational purposes. If we are not able to raise money through property taxes. do you have any other thoughts as to how we are going to be able to get the necessary finances into the school system?

Mrs. FRIEDER. I would just like to say before I answer that, just a remark to the Senator, that my own district of Denver did just adopt a school bond issue. On Last Tuesday they passed one.

Senator DOMINICK. Good.

Mrs. FRIEDER. We were very glad to see that happen because the public was convinced there was a need and they were willing to support it. I would not be so bold as to suggest any formula or any technical language or laymen's language for supplying money to the schools. I do feel that basic to the problem and I think you touched on it in your prior statements to Mr. Selden, is the method of taxation that we have, the way the schools are organized in the local districts with the dependence on the property tax.

We all know that the resources of the various districts vary greatly and I was interested in your comment on your own tax bill in Cherry Hills district which has a very high tax levy in Colorado but also has probably the best schools in the State so they are getting something for their money. I feel there must be much greater equalization Statewise and then we must come to grips with extending that theory of equity to the Nation as between States.

Senator DOMINICK. Mrs. Frieder, would you do me a favor? Would you allow me to recess this and then come back so that I don' get an ulcer trying to get over there and vote again?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Certainly. We don't want you to have an ulcer. We want to keep you in good health.

Senator DOMINICK. You don't mind waiting?

Mrs. FRIEDER. NO.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you.

(A brief recess was taken.)

Senator PELL. The subcommittee will come back to order. Mrs. Frieder, in connection with the revenue-sharing bill, as I understand it, it has simply called for consolidation of some of the provisions of the present legislation. You would be supportive of this approach but when it comes to the broadness of the language and the freedom with which the money can be moved from section to section, you are opposed to it. Would that be a correct summary?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Yes, we are very apprehensive about this. We feel that the bill as presently written, does not contain the safeguards we would like to see. Under the 30-percent provision where States may have discretion, we find such programs as the Child Nutrition Act involved in that and various other titles of legislation for which the National Council of Jewish Women have worked long and hard as many other groups.

We would deplore the possibility, shall we say, of certain programs such as those being relegated to the 70-percent implementation, if you understand what I mean?

Senator PELL. As you pointed out, many of the funds that are authorized are not appropriated. In the defense and space sectors I think it is better than 97 or 98 percent of the funds that are authorized are appropriated, while in education and health it is around 50 percent. We would like to see if we can at least reverse these figures. If we can't, at best I would like to see a compromise.

Mrs. FRIEDER. Yes, I think if the time came where we could see the education programs implemented as they are authorized, we would then be in a position to make a better judgment about a lot of the programs that we have in the schools. Remember, we have never really had that opportunity.

Senator PELL. I think there is one area we disagree in and that is in connection with aid to nonpublic schools. In my State better than 17 percent of the children go to nonpublic schools. From a historical viewpoint I have no concern about aid being given to them, indeed this is where education came from in the beginning.

If you study education abroad, the kids are educated in church schools. Very often you find them just as independent thinking and not subject to control in any way.

From an economic viewpoint it would be a disaster in my community if all the nonpublic schools were closed. You said that you thought that this aid would help the schools and not the children. I would have thought that we could maintain the idea of letting aid follow the children, that that would resolve the problem. What do you think?

Mrs. FRIEDER. There are only so many dollars that are going to be appropriated in any legislation and the amount of dollars that follow the children to nonpublic schools are dollars that are not received by the public schools and I think possibly what we have here is a difference in philosophy. The National Council of Jewish Women is committed to the philosophy of complete segregation between church and state.

We regard legislation such as this and its predecessor, ESEA and other titles, as a breach of that.

I think this is probably a philosophical difference but we believe it most strongly.

Senator PELL. I realize that and again I hope that the compromise which will emerge along these lines, is a continuation of the idea of the aid following and helping the kids.

Do you think it would be possible to bring in some formula for equalization or some formula to make sure that the urban areas and the ghetto areas got their share?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Well that, of course, is one of our main concerns. We are very much concerned that these areas of the country not be short changed, as it were, in any legislation that comes from this Congress. We feel that this bill does not give enough recognition to directing the money to where the problems are and the various categorical programs that this Congress has passed over the years all were directed to a specific problem, national problem as seen by the Congress.

Some of the problems may have been solved but that would be the exception rather than the rule.

Senator PELL. Do you think that this measure can conceivably be made acceptable to your organization?

Mrs. FRIEDER. On the basis of the church-state issue as it presently reads, we could not support it. That would be the primary, basic objection, if all the other problems could be solved.

Senator PELL. The National League of Cities conducted a study of the application of block grants, grant funds by States and they concluded that in practice State dollar distribution had frustrated chances for coordination, that instead of avoiding proliferation of paperwork and bureaucracy the block grant approach interposed new and costly delays in bureaucracy. Do you think this could happen in this case, that there would be new kinds of bureaucracy created, just at a different

Mrs. FRIEDER. Just at a different level.

Senator PELL. At a different level.

Mrs. FRIEDER. It is very possible.

Senator PELL. This is one of the reasons why I personally have very real reservations about the regionalization approach. I think that with only 50 states, and the territories, we still will have never more than 55 entities and in that case, they could all report directly to one central spot. I was wondering what your views were on that?

Mrs. FRIEDER. From my experience as a member of the board of education of the State my views would coincide with yours. As a State board member I have felt and the National Association of State Boards has felt that regionalization is adding another layer and whether it does or doesn't in fact is in the eye of the beholder.

If the bodies or the constituencies involved feel that it's another layer, to them it is another layer. I happen to feel it is another layer. Senator PELL. Thank you. I have pretty well exhausted my questions but on the other hand since you have come a long way from Colorado perhaps you could stay just where you are until Senator Dominick comes back and your successor witness, Dr. Edward D'Alessio, coordinator of governmental programs, division of elemen tary and secondary education, U.S. Catholic Conference can com