PITTSBURGH, PA., PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDS

You may be interested to know that in June 1961, the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education brought before the State legislature a request for funds necessary to finance its 1962-63 program. In all, the board indicated a need for an additional $4.5 million. The plan proposed a one-half percent wage tax.

Without prompting, the Pittsburgh Catholic, the official publication of the diocese, editorialized on this request and I submit this for the record (chart 9).

Briefly, the editorial stated that

Whether the tax scheme advanced by the board of public education is the best and proper means to secure this revenue, we do not presume to say What we ask is sympathetic hearing for the proposal, and understanding and interest in the case (or is the word "plight"?) of public school education in Pittsburgh.

The necessary legislation was passed. The Pittsburgh Public School Board now has a budget of approximately $34 million a year. But we should note that our board of public education and, therefore, the citizens of Pittsburgh are saving about $22 million annually in operational cost because the Catholic citizens in that same area educate 40 percent of the city's school-age population.

May I tell you what $22 million a year means in my town? For one thing, it means quality public education for some 50,000 children (chart 10).

Twenty-two million dollars in our hometown means the total annual budget for the department of safety which includes the salaries and expenses for both the police and fire departments, plus the total budget for the bureau of bridges, highways, and sewers.

Twenty-two million dollars in my hometown means slightly more than the annual cost of the department of lands and building, libraries, the water department, department of parks and recreation, department of refuse, and the department of bridges, highways, and sewers. When we say, gentlemen, that the Catholic community is saving the city of Pittsburgh-and we are considering here only the city of Pittsburgh, not the diocese-approximately $22 million a year, we can conceive better the meaning of this huge savings when we realize that the proposed budget for 1963 in my hometown is $60 million. Twenty-two million dollars is more than one-third of our city's current budget.

DESCRIPTION OF PAROCHIAL SCHOOL OPERATION AND CURRICULUM

Do take a moment to take a look inside one of our parochial schools. Every child starts the schoolday in somewhat the same fashion. There is a prayer and the salute to the flag. The public schools in our area have a little different procedure at this point. In addition to the prayer and the salute to the flag they also have Bible reading. Then there is the usual routine of checking the tardy and the absent.

These records are eventually sent on to my office so that I will have the information necessary to fill out reports required by the health department and the local department of child accounting.

Then follows a religion period during which the children are instructed about God and the things of God. The rest of the daily schedule is submitted for your reading at a more opportune time. It can be passed over quickly because the subjects taught are set down by the State council of education and, therefore, are already a matter of official record (chart 11).

Regretfully, some erroneously think that the administrators of private and parochial schools nonchalantly decide what shall be taught. This is simply not true. The minimum requirements are determined by the State council of education. The Public School Code of Pennsylvania clearly states that

every child of compulsory school age having a legal residence in this Commonwealth, as provided in this article, and every migratory child of compulsory school age, is required to attend a day school in which the subjects and activities presented by the State council of education are taught in the English language" (sec. 1327).

Section 1605 of the code spells out the general requirements at the secondary level. Without belaboring the point, I would like to summarize the controls exercised by the State over our schools. When a school is established in our diocese the following procedures are to be observed.

(1) A site is selected and permission is given by the civil authorities to erect a school. Providing the area is properly zoned, there is seldom difficulty.

(2) Plans are prepared by an architect and these must be approved by the department of health, the department of labor and industry, as well as local city or township authorities as required.

(3) The program prescribed by the State council of education must be provided.

(4) At the secondary level, the State council requires, among other things, 13 credits for graduation. Eight subjects are specifically required and I submit this along with other materials, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, for the record.

Senator MORSE. All the requests of the witness for insertions in the record are granted.

Monsignor McDOWELL. Thank you.

(5) In the case of a secondary school, approval is granted only after department of public instruction officials visit the school and determine that the minimum' requirements are being met. These officials examine the entire school plant and the program-except, of course, the religion program.

RELIGION IN PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS

Senator MORSE. Isn't this a good point for me, Monsignor, to request, not testimony this morning, but the exercise of your own discretion as to a supplementary memorandum you might wish to file for the subcommittee?

I raise it in connection with this sentence:

These officials examine the entire school plant and the program-except, of course, the religion program.

Now, I need not tell you that, in hearings before this subcommittee, there are those who file with us strong dissents in connection with any

98-466 0-63-vol. 3 29

aid to religious schools, Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian or any other, because of their point of view that to do so would be using public funds to teach religion. This charge is well known to you. In my capacity here as chairman, I have to make a record on it. The charge is that although there is a teaching of the curriculum provided for by the State, as you testified this morning, the curriculum is taught with a philosophical angle with religious connotations. It is discussed more in connection with Catholic schools than with other religious schools, although I think the criticism, if valid, would apply to all denominational schools.

Let me state it as fairly as I can and as delicately as I can. What is really being said by these critics is that in the Catholic schools and in other religious schools, these standard State required subject matters are taught, but they are taught, with a religious emphasis which results in the teaching of religion.

We are told that when we provide a section in the bill which says none of the funds can be used for chapels, and in the library section, that none of the funds can be used for buying religious books, and in another section that none of the funds can be used for the construction of classrooms, in which religion can be taught. We, in fact, are not striking religion from the appropriation. The reasoning is that religion is taught in every course, whether it be English, biology, or history. This may or may not be the fact situation, perhaps sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, but the charge is that in the teaching there is much religious propaganda in it.

I am not asking you to make any public statement in this hearing on this point.

I have raised it in public. What I am interested in is seeing to it that this record contains your answer to these charges if you want to supply it, so I hereby grant you permission to file any supplemental memoranda you may wish to on this point.1

In fact, let me make clear to this group of witnesses, as I have to others, that this record is going to be kept open after we finish the public hearings for a period of time. I have not consulted with my colleagues yet to determine what that period of time will be, but I can assure you it will be at least 2 weeks.

Counsel says that I had previously announced 10 days, but I announce 2 weeks this morning.

Lots of water has gone over the dam since. Many witnesses have been heard. I am sure that for some it will require 2 weeks' preparation for the filing of memoranda supplementing statements witnesses have already made or rebuttal material that they may wish to file in connection with what the transcript of the hearings will show.

Monsignor, I have had to live with this argument too long, and I felt that I owed it to you to raise it publicly this morning, because we have to come to grips with it. I need not tell you, I am sure, that the argument has great persuasive influence, not only on Members of Congress, but it has great persuasive influence on the people of our country as a whole. Should you wish to make any comment now, you are certainly privileged to do so, but I want also to give you an opportunity to file a memorandum.

1 Material referred to may be found on p. 1698ff.

Monsignor McDOWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your generosity in receiving further information on this and also the extension of time. We will submit some pamphlets on it. I also have some comments to make on it in the few remaining pages of my statement.

Senator JAVITS. Will the Chair yield?

Senator MORSE. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. I may not be able to stay beyond a few minutes and the Chair still has to entertain the testimony of a witness who is of great interest to me, coming from New York, who will be testifying on behalf of Cardinal Spellman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, Mr. Cusack, on this subject.

AID CRITERIA

I would like to add a word of addendum to the chairman's question, and that is, would the witnesses believe it appropriate or inappropriate to include a provision broadening aid so that it may be substantively related to the teaching of subjects which it is in the public interest to teach, no matter where taught, with a qualifying provision, that they shall be taught according to State curriculum, or perhaps the witnesses could suggest some other standard which would contain, therefore, a standard in the law to which the administrator of the act could repair in determining whether or not any effort was being made to infiltrate the religious teaching in the teaching of national interest subjects. I am using my words, I am not asking you to adopt them.

I have thought of the use of the words, "taught according to State curricula," as being the proper standard. But there may be some others. I have been listening to the Chair's excellent presentation of the case.

Monsignor McDOWELL. Senator, the State has very specific requirements and they must be met. The only authority to grant credits is the State. The State, I think, officially acknowledges your point by giving approval and granting credits for subjects that are taken in our schools in these areas. They do not, of course, grant credit for religion. But they do, sir, grant credit for every other subject.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Proceed, Monsignor.

Monsignor McDOWELL. I was indicating that, if all is in order, the school and its program are approved.

They must be certain that the school is fulfilling the minimum requirements set down by the State council of education and the department of public instruction. If all is in order, the school and its program are approved. The school is then listed in bulletin 70, Education Directory, Department of Public Instruction. Approval means the State officially acknowledges that the program of the school is doing the job to the satisfaction of the highest educational authority in the State. It means that courses completed in that school, except religion, fulfill the State's purpose; that credits awarded by one approved school will be recognized by any other approved public, private, or parochial schools.

All credits issued by one of our schools except in religion-whether in science, mathematics, American history, problems of democracy, modern or classical languages, English, civics or whatever, are accepted by any other public or nonpublic school when, for example, a child transfers. Children who attend a parochial elementary school and continue their education in a public or private secondary school, are accepted without difficulty.

STATE STANDARDS

These facts are mentioned not to imply that the State has no right to establish reasonable standards. Obviously, it has such rights. This is only to call to your attention certain fallacious and rather widespread misconceptions. It is frequently assumed that Catholic schools operate in a vacuum; that the program is merely an elaborate catechetical effort. It is rather generally assumed that civil authorities exercise no control over the parochial or private school programs. So frequently one encounters the charge that no aid can be given to parochial schools because the citizens would have no control over such funds. This simply isn't true. I presume that the legislature, that properly appointed civic authorities, that, in our own case, the State council of education and the department of public instruction represent the people.

I can assure you that the people exercise vast control over our schools and through their legally established reresentatives, the people evaluate, supervise, and approve those areas of education which serve a public purpose. Those who forward this argument must not be aware of the existence and extent of the controls existing in most States in this Nation.

Of course, it is one thing to say that Catholic schools in our area or in any area achieve the goals set down by public authorities and quite another thing to establish the fact that the program is satisfactory. I should like to provide you with some evidence on this point. I must warn you, however, that the program in the diocese of Pittsburgh is undergoing vast changes at the present time. Along with our colleagues in the public schools we are attempting to meet the demands being made by changing content and techniques in every subject. However, the Pittsburgh diocese has moved ahead in making a more substantial change in its program, especially at the elementary level by introducing an ungraded program. This program was initiated on an experimental basis in 1957 and its success has prompted us to commit the entire diocese to it.

The ungraded program is somewhat complicated and, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit for the record a copy of a column writen by Dr. Benjamin Fine, a noted educational writer, which explains, at least in broad outline, the nature and purpose of this program (chart 12).

Also, I request permission to submit, Mr. Chairman, copies of the results of standardized tests administered to students in the schools of the diocese of Pittsburgh in January 1962 and January 1963 (chart 13).

These tests were prepared by a nationally recognized testing company and are designed to determine the level of achievement in the