There is some difference of opinion whether as a nation we are moving farther away from or closer to separation of church and state in education. The recently enacted School Aid Act straddles the fence. In the previous session of Congress, the vast assistance for higher education that went into effect included, on a matching basis, church-related as well as public colleges and universities. And the enactment of the school aid legislation leaves the door ajar for federal assistance to private and parochial schools.
That students of the subject disagree about the extent to which there should be separation of church and state is not surprising. In this short discussion, I have no intention of entering into various philosophical aspects of the problem. As a parent, as an educator, and as a Protestant (Methodist), I simply wish to consider certain practical problems.
We Americans tend to be pragmatic. If “pragmatism” is not too narrowly defined, it is probably desirable. There comes a time when we assume that little is to be gained by further talk. We want action. Thus it seems superfluous to continue to discuss whether the Becker amendment to the Constitution, presented in the last session of Congress, was desirable or undesirable. The fact is that the only sure way for Protestants to get around the problem is to set up more of their own schools. Apparently an increasing number of Protestants have come to this decision, and the element of “liberal” or “conservative,” theologically speaking, has virtually nothing to do with the matter.
As a teacher of teachers, I am aware of the many possible pitfalls of plans for Protestant schools. The main objection has usually come from those who believe that Protestants have a moral obligation to support public rather than private education. I think that such an admonition overly simplifies the issue. In any case, it is highly unlikely that there will be a great rush by Protestants to establish their own elementary and secondary schools. Those who believe it their duty to support the public schools—this will no doubt be a majority—will do just that. At the same time, it is probable that there will be a gradual turn toward experiments in Protestant parochial and parent-controlled Christian education.
Among the practical reasons for setting up more Protestant schools is to make better use of facilities. I admit to no formal research, but even informal investigations show clearly that church education buildings simply are not being used. Many of these buildings are first-rate in both beauty of design and utility of structure.
The question will inevitably be raised that, since most churches already have financial burdens, why add to these by setting a new course of action in uncharted seas? Actually, the seas are at least to some extent charted. Yet overriding these considerations is the matter of values. Christians cannot escape value judgments. And Protestants have a way of finding the money if they believe the program is important. Lutherans, among others, have proved that the job can be done.
Protestant philanthropists are presently giving millions of dollars to church-related colleges and universities. While nothing would be gained by cutting this financial pie into smaller pieces, it is possible that giving could be increased to include elementary and secondary schools. As for tuition, there are parents who surely would be willing to pay for the kind of schooling that clearly includes God in the curriculum.
Where will well-trained teachers be found? One answer is: where they are now being found for those Protestant day schools that are functioning effectively. These teachers apparently believe that any education that excludes God really isn’t worth the name of education. Do they receive smaller salaries than the public school teachers? Some do; others do not. Pay for teachers is not, however, the main criterion in determining whether Protestant day schools are worth the effort.
It has been asserted that, even though faith in separate Protestant education is founded upon desire—and the desire surely exists—state regulations complicate the establishing of such schools. Most states do have teacher-certification laws with the bachelor’s degree as the minimum requirement. And the curriculum for this degree must include courses in education as well as liberal arts. The number of term-hours required in education varies from state to state. On the other hand, provisional certificates are available for beginning teachers in nearly all states. Deficiency programs give time to make up what is lacked for full certification.
The question of state requirements is debatable. For the present, however, it would seem preferable for those in charge of Protestant schools to require their teachers to satisfy the same standards demanded of teachers in public schools. In those states where there is rigid control, the private schools have no choice. The point is that none of the problems of teacher-certification is insurmountable.
It is often said that Protestants have always identified themselves with the mainstream of American life, or that, more to the point, they are the mainstream. And if this is so, why, it is asked, should they undertake a plan that runs counter to public education, when the latter has been the great leveling force in our democracy? Furthermore, we are told that, since adequate private schools require rather high tuition rates, to increase their number would serve to build an undesirable class-structured school system.
Let us admit that this position has some validity. But let us at the same time remember that democracy does not rest upon a monolithic educational foundation. Rather, as we have been told time and again, we have a pluralistic society. Setting up new Protestant schools would simply add another element to a culture that eschews uniformity and encourages pluralism. Therefore a movement toward more Protestant-related schools would lead toward more, not less, democracy.
The justification for Protestants’ establishing elementary and secondary schools is apparent. There is really no other way to avoid confusion over constitutional rights for those who want God taught to their children with no ifs, ands, or buts.
Recently it has become quite the fashion to picture the Supreme Court as a great godless bogeyman. This was especially apparent in the efforts of proponents of the Becker amendment. As CHRISTIANITY TODAY pointed out at the time (June 19, 1964, page 21), no amendment to the Bill of Rights has ever been adopted. Clearly, then, it is virtually hopeless, and probably undesirable, to attempt to make over our great public school system in the image of a particular, God-inspired purpose.
It is an essential part of the Protestant tradition to recognize education and religion as two important sides of the same valuable coin. The Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony set the pattern with the Old Deluder Act in 1647. But since their socio-political system was a well-coordinated theocracy, they recognized no conflict between church and state.
Since the adoption of the Constitution, however, there has been this conflict. Yet Protestants still believe that there is a connection between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the moral and ethical practices of the individual and the group. If within recent years we have made little or no effort to show our youth the relation between Christ and moral behavior, then it is most emphatically contemporary America that is the loser. It is time—indeed, it is past time—for Protestants to utilize their educational resources more fully and to develop more of their own schools.
