Should Government Help Kids Attend Private Schools?

When his 5-year-old son brought home a school newsletter in December, Kenneth Daniel read its account of various holiday traditions. As he perused the Arlington, Virginia, public school publication, he was dismayed to find no reference to Christmas. And in a story about the first “evergreen tree,” Martin Luther was identified as “a German clergyman.”

For Daniel, the school newsletter was the last straw. In a letter to the Washington Post, he fumed that calling the leader of the Protestant Reformation “a German clergyman” is as absurd as “describing Abraham Lincoln as a ‘lawyer from Illinois.’ … This sort of revisionist protectionism ill serves the educational process.” A week later, the Washington Post endorsed Daniel’s position in an editorial.

Concern about the quality of public education focuses on a breakdown of discipline, a lack of emphasis on basic skills, and a neglect of moral values and religion. As a result, a growing number of people, including U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett, are advocating “parental choice” in education.

Educational Options

Last year, Bennett proposed a voucher system that would have made federal money available to low-income families who want to send their children to private schools. That plan died in a congressional subcommittee, but Bennett has introduced a new plan as part of President Reagan’s budget proposal.

The plan would assist low-achiever children from poor families, primarily in elementary schools. Instead of using the word “voucher,” it recommends issuing “compensatory education certificates (CEC’s).” This approach would allow local school districts—not parents—to decide if a CEC is to be used. Local education officials would tailor that decision to academic achievement and poverty standards set by their state. If a CEC is issued, the parents would be free to send their child to any school they wish—public, private, or church-related.

A state department of education would be allowed to order a school district to issue a CEC if the state finds that the quality of education at the local level is “educationally bankrupt [and] is not helping children improve their skills and performance.”

Mixed Reviews

Forrest Turpen, executive director of the Christian Educators Association International, supports Bennett’s plan. According to Turpen, “The right of the parent is paramount.”

But other groups, both secular and sectarian, have voiced opposition. Americans United for Separation of Church and State calls the substitution of CEC’s for vouchers “a ruse” to sneak in federal aid to private schools. Americans United executive director Robert L. Maddox asserts, “The administration and other advocates of parochiaid [government aid to church-related schools] have made it abundantly clear that once the voucher principle is established, the scale of the program will be enlarged.”

James Dunn, of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, points to the threat of government control over religious schools. “Government intrusion always follows government funding,” he says. “If the bill’s purpose is to channel public money to private and parochial schools, we’re opposed because those schools should be beyond the reach of government.”

Teachers’ unions have voiced some of the strongest opposition, arguing that public schools will be damaged if aid is siphoned off to private schools. Officials of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) admit that fewer students enrolled in public schools could also mean fewer teachers—and therefore fewer union members. But they bristle at the suggestion that their opposition is gauged to perpetuate an educational monopoly. Says Robert Astrup, president of the Minnesota Education Association: “Since the dollars are very scarce to begin with, we’re very jealous about public dollars going to public schools. It’s a fight for resources.”

Teachers’ unions are acutely aware of the educational reform movement sweeping the nation. AFT president Albert Shanker says he favors toughening the standards that determine teacher competency—an idea not always popular with his union’s members. But Shanker is uneasy about government aid to nonpublic schools. He has suggested that allowing private control of public education dollars could lead to anarchy, because children would not learn “common values.… You would have one group going to Jewish schools, another to Protestant schools, Communist schools, Ku Klux Klan schools.… We would become like other countries that have different groups [that] end up killing each other.”

Critics of Shanker’s position argue that public schools have become aggressively secular, with values having largely been neutralized. As a result, advocates of private-school options say public schools cannot transmit “common values.”

Excluding Religion

Indeed, several recent studies indicate that religion is being excluded from public school textbooks. The best-known study was conducted by New York University psychologist Paul Vitz. He found a history text that defines pilgrims as “people who make long trips.” And a reference to Joan of Arc neglected to mention her religious motivation. The omission of references to religion led a U.S. District Court judge in Alabama recently to ban more than 40 textbooks from public schools in his state (CT, April 3, 1987, p. 42).

Parents are also concerned about the values—or in some cases the lack of values—being taught in public schools. They argue that a “value-neutral” approach tends to dominate school curricula. Disillusionment mounts as this approach spills over into areas of practical application, such as school-based clinics dispensing contraceptives without parental knowledge or consent.

Parents who prefer not to send their children to public schools have pursued two alternatives: home schooling and private schools. Home schooling is growing in popularity, but it requires a herculean commitment of a parent’s time and energy. Private schooling appeals to many, but high admission standards and costly tuitions often limit enrollment to the bright and/or the wealthy.

What’s Ahead?

Should parents of school-age children opt to fight with public schools over curriculum and values, or take flight to a private alternative? Turpen, of the Christian Educators Association International, says both options need to be kept alive. His organization will meet in August to seek ways to work toward constructive solutions within the public school system.

In terms of federal money assisting students in private schools, the decision rests with lawmakers. And observers say it is likely the answer will be no. Even before the details of Bennett’s plan reached the Capitol, U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), chairman of a Senate subcommittee on education, voiced his opposition. Pell said the President’s education budget “deserves to be ignored and discarded.”

If Congress fails to approve Bennett’s plan, parents could lobby state and local officials for more attentiveness to the needs of individual families. According to many education reformers, those are the best levels of government for setting education policy.

By John H. DeDakis.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.