munity there is little evidence of any conflict either between the children of public and nonpublic schools or between their parents. (See appendix, Two Systems, Puplic and Private, America, October 5, 1946, Allan Farrell, S. J.)

Principle III.-Unlike a totalitarian state, the government in a democracy has of itself nothing to teach. It does not attempt to impose itself upon the citizens.

In a democracy the functions of the government in education are restricted to: 1. Financing schools which meet standards set in terms of citizenship. 2. Enforcing compulsory education laws.

3. Engaging in direct educational activities in such fields as military science and government service.

Principle IV.-Education is not to be regarded as a governmental service similar to police or fire protection. The instinct of democracy within us, or if you will, the vision of our founding fathers, has given us a system of education which is administered by a separate mechanism apart from other phases of political organization. This typical American practice is a recognition of the fact that education does not belong to the Government in the same way as do other activities that need public support and control; its purposes and processes are to be determined not by governmental dictation and political power, but by those people, particularly the parents, whose interests the schools are intended to serve. Principle V.-The financing of schools through public taxation is a responsi bility of government, especially of local and State governments. This responsi bility entails and obligation to observe the norms of distributive justice in distributing tax funds among the schools within the community. Since government itself has nothing to teach, and because government receives a full return from its educational investment when a school produces well-trained citizens, therefore, every school to which parents may send their children in compliance with the compulsory education laws of the State is entitled to a fair share of tax funds. Local and State governments which refuse to support schools not under the control of the local school board are guilty of an injustice against other qualified schools within the community.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES

These five basic principles of educational administration and finance constitute a charter for freedom of education in America. Even the most sincere and most enthusiastic proponent of the public schools should admit that the full acceptance of these principles is the Nation's only protection against eventual governmental control of the Nation's schools.

In the field of hard political realities we find that at the present time these principles cannot be applied fully to the solution of the pressing problems of the moment. In most of the States constitutional or statutory regulations prohibit the use of any local or State funds (not Federal funds) for current expenditures in nonpublic schools. However, in 15 States transportation service is provided for nonpublic school children and in five States nonreligious textbooks are furnished for nonpublic school children.

Most of the State prohibitions against aid for nonpublic schools stem from a Civil War hysteria aroused by the pressure of many sectarian groups to secure public funds for schools which were far below any reasonable standard of adequacy. Rather than tackle the complicated problem of setting up standards for these sectarian schools, the States dodged the problem by an over-all prohibition against aid for any school not under public control. This expediency has since been rationalized as a cardinal principle of American education. The complete secularization of American public education and its corollary, the denial of public funds to qualified sectarian schools, have "far outrun the intention of those educational leaders" who initiated the public-school movement.1

It should be noted here that in the Constitution of the United States there is no prohibition against aid to nonpublic schools similar to those in the States. In fact, 20 attempts to amend the Federal Constitution so that neither Federal nor State funds could be used for sectarian institutions have failed in the Congress. Manifestly, it is the will of the American people that Congress be free to support. all qualified schools, regardless of the peculiar prohibitions and restrictions in the States.

3 Cubberley, Public Education in the United States, p. 239.

The Relation of Religion to Public Education, American Council on Education, 1947, p. 9.
House Document 551, 70th Cong., 2d sess.

In its legislation for aid to education Congress has followed a traditional policy of equity. As was noted in the Separate Statement of Views accompanying S.. 181 of the Seventy-ninth Congress:

"During the depression and the recent war crisis when the resources of every school-public and nonpublic-were mobilized for the general welfare of the Nation, there was no hesitancy in making Federal funds available to any school which was willing to cooperate with the Federal Government. The NYA studentaid program drew no distinction between public and nonpublic schools. The emergency school-lunch legislation invited all schools to participate in a program for agricultural stabilization and child welfare. The war-training program called upon the resources of every technical school. There was no cry of sectarianism when the Army and Navy established their specialized-training programs on the campuses of denominational colleges.

"At the present time the Federal Government is pursuing a policy of equity in its postwar educational legislation. This very day the Federal Government is donating and selling at a discount some of its surplus war property for use in nonpublic schools. The GI bill of rights authorizes the Federal Government to pay tuition fees to nonpublic schools which have been approved by the State approving agency. This famous law reveals the intention of Congress to ask no more of the school receiving Federal funds than it be qualified to give the veteran an education which squares with reasonable standards. Congress only last week passed the school-lunch program which provides aid to all schools alike, public and private. Under the terms of the GI bill our national Government will pay millions of dollars in tuition fees to privately controlled schools. It appears to us that a Congress which has agreed to pay a veteran's tuition to a privately controlled school should not hesitate to grant aid or service to a similar school to which he chooses to send his children." 6

The dilemma before the Congress is simply this: Mindful of its traditional respect for State prerogatives in education, the Congress is confronted with its own traditional policy of equity toward both public and nonpublic schools. A way out of this dilemma is suggested in the Separate Statement of Views:

"We propose that this bill be amended so that its benefits may be extended to every child in America who is receiving a substandard education, regardless of whether the school attended is publicly or privately controlled. We recommend that the States be permitted to decide for themselves whether or not they may under the terms of their laws allocate an equitable share of Federal funds to nonpublic schools. The States should not be compelled to spend a corresponding share of local or State resources for the same purpose. Furthermore, we believe that inasmuch as the funds are apportioned to the States on the basis of the total child population some provision must be made to guarantee an equitable distribution of the Federal funds within the State. Therefore, we recommend that if in any State, the State educational agency is not permitted by law to disburse the funds paid to it under this act to nonpublic schools in the State, the Commissioner of Education shall withhold from the funds apportioned to any such State under section 4 of this act the same proportion of the funds as the number of children between the ages of 5 and 17, inclusive, attending nonpublic schools within the State is of the total number of persons of those ages within the State attending school. The Commissioner shall disburse the funds so withheld directly to the nonpublic schools within said State for the same purpose and subject to the same conditions as are authorized or required with respect to the disbursements to schools within the State by the State educational agency. This amendment will be a guaranty of equity."7

It would be understood that none of the funds made available to nonpublic schools would be used for paying the salaries of teachers.

URGENT NEED FOR COMPROMISE

Although the proposed amendment is a simple, direct, and reasonable solution of the so-called nonpublic school controversy, it probably will not meet with a favorable reaction in public school circles. Fears will be expressed about its deleterious effect upon the Nation's public school system and whispered rumors will spread reports about the "inroads" of sectarian groups. Meanwhile, teachers, despairing of any hope for Federal aid, will leave the profession in ever-increasing numbers and thousands of children in the public schools will suffer the results of á prolonged dispute between public school and nonpublic school administrators.

Report No. 1497, 79th Cong., 2d sess., p. 18 (see also Richard J. Gabel, Public Funds for Church and Private Schools, Washington, D. C., 1937.) 'Report No. 1497, 79th Cong., 2d sess., p. 19.

In suggesting a compromise, the Department of Education does not retreat one step from its position that Congress should not pass a discriminatory Federal-aid bill, one which would treat the nonpublic schools as second-class institutions subject to the vagaries of State school administrators. The Department does recognize, however, that there is in public education an emergency which does not exist in most nonpublic schools. This emergency is the critical shortage of public school classroom teachers as a result of low teachers' salaries in the poorer States. Therefore, the Department proposes as a fair compromise that a bill be drafted which would:

1. Provide on an equalization basis to the poorer States funds specifically earmarked for increasing the salaries of classroom teachers and for no other purpose.

2. Provide funds to be disbursed through the States for reimbursing both public and nonpublic schools for certain essential school services furnished to the children. These essential services should be transportation, nonreligious instructional supplies, and health and welfare services.

If any public school professional group were to reject this compromise, which at best gives a token recognition to the nonpublic schools, it would then become apparent wherein lies the reason for any delay in securing Federal aid for the Nation's schools. (See Appendix, tables I, II, and III, for estimated saving to the Nation from operation of Catholic elementary and secondary schools.)

CHURCH AND STATE

In presenting this brief, the Department of Education has deliberately refrained from any prolonged discussion of the separation of church and state. We fail to see how this consideration is pertinent to Federal aid to education for we note that most people who oppose Federal aid for parochial schools also oppose aid for nonsectarian, nonpublic schools.

Separation of church and state means at least that no branch of our Government shall be permitted to don the theologian's robes while prying into a school's internal affairs to determine whether any religious instruction is imparted along with instruction in the secular subjects. Separation of church and state means that the Government shall not make membership in any church a condition for citizenship, nor shall it disqualify any citizen as a beneficiary of its aid because of his affiliation with any church.

In the field of education separation of church and state bars the Government from inquiring into the religious or nonreligious character of any school receiving its aid. Government may only ask: "Is this school an institution to which parents may send their children in compliance with the compulsory education laws of the State?" If the answer is in the affirmative, the school is entitled to public support.

The American theory of the separation of church and state is well expressed in the opinion of Justice Alexander in the Mississippi textbook case:

"There is no requirement that the church should be a liability to those of its citizenship who are at the same time citizens of the state, and entitled to privileges and benefits as such. Nor is there any requirement that the state should be godless or should ignore the privileges and benefits of the church. Indeed, the state has made historical acknowledgment and daily legislative admission of a mutual dependence one upon the other.

"It is the control of one over the other that our constitution forbids, sections 18 and 208. The recognition by each of the isolation and influence of the other remains as one of the duties and liberties, respectively, of the individual citizen. It is not amiss to observe that by too many of our citizens the political separation of church and state is misconstrued as indicating an incompatibility between their respective manifestations, religion and politics. The state has a duty to respect the independent sovereignty of the church as such; it has also the duty to exercise vigilance to discharge its obligation to those who, although subject to its control, are also objects of its bounty and care, and whom regardless of any other affiliation are primarily wards of the state. The constitutional barrier which protects each against invasion by the other must not be so high that the state, in discharging its obligation as parens patriae, cannot surmount distinctions which, viewing the citizen as a component unit of the state, become irrelevant.

"The religion to which children of school age adhere is not subject to control by the state; but the children themselves are subject to its control. If the pupil

4

may fulfill its duty to the state by attending a parochial school it is difficult to see why the state may not fulfill its duty to the pupil by encouraging it 'by all suitable means.' The state is under the duty to ignore the child's creed, but not its need. It cannot control what one child may think, but it can and must do all it can to teach the child how to think. The state which allows the pupil to subscribe to any religious creed should not, because of his exercise of this right, proscribe him from benefits common to all." 8

SUMMARY

1. The department of education, NCWC, favors Federal aid to education as a corrective measure for the educational deficiencies in States lacking sufficient taxable resources to provide an adequate education for every child.

2. The department recommends that the Federal Government continue its traditional respect for parental rights in education, and that it pass no bill which directly or indirectly interferes with full freedom of education.

3. The department proposes that the amendment to S. 181 suggested in the separate statement of views in the report accompanying S. 181, Seventy-ninth Congress, be incorporated into S. 472 with the modification that no funds be available for the salaries of teachers in nonpublic schools. This amendment is wholly consistent with the Federal Government's traditional policy of equity in its educational legislation, and with its policy of respect for States' rights in education.

4. The department observes that in the present emergency a compromise bill might be drafted with a dual provision for increases in the salaries of public school classroom teachers and for the reimbursement of both public and nonpublic schools for certain essential services furnished to all the children.

APPENDIX

Two cautions are recommended in citing the statistics on the estimated savings accruing from the operation of Catholic schools:

1. The per capita expenditure for public education is based on average daily attendance which is generally 10 to 15 per cent lower than enrollment figures. We estimate, however, that this differential is counterbalanced by the fact that in most States the Catholic schools are located in the cities where as a rule the per capita expenditure is higher than in the rural areas.

2. In table III the figures are probably somewhat inflated. Many Catholic school pupils probably could be housed in existing public school facilities without an increased capital outlay for school property.

1 Catholic school enrollment, 1941-42, from Catholic Colleges and Schools in the United States, 1944. NCWC Department of Education.

In average daily attendance. Figures from Statistics of State School Systems, 1949-40 and 1941-42. Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, p. 98, table 28.

3 Catholic school enrollment, 1943-44, from Summary of Catholic Education, 1944-45. NCWC Department of Education.

4 In average daily attendance. Figures from Statistics of State School Systems, 1943-44. Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, p. 62, table 28.

NOTE.-In 1944-45 the Catholic school system saved the taxpayers $374,877,327.08, an increase of $56,731,035.25, or 17.8 percent over the savings of 1941-42.