|
Responsibility #32
(written prior to July 1992)
To the People of the United States of America:
Of the two principal excuses, why the free and uninhibited choice of schools by families has been denied by the courts and state and federal governments, revenues (taxes) were covered in the last essay. Now let us look at the second, religion.
If the federal and state governments (including the courts) give equal weight to the free exercise of religion, as they do to the non-establishment of religion, there need be no insurmountable problems, associated with having private and parochial schools as alternatives to public schools. The opposition to funds (or materials and services) being allocated to non-public schools has been based on the separation of church and state, an argument that doesn't hold water.
Governments have no funds of their own. They are merely conduits, through which revenues (taxes) pass, to be expended in accordance with legal and moral purposes, previously approved by We the People, through our legislative and executive representatives. When revenues are collected from all families and businesses to support education, they cannot then be denied to families who choose (or find it necessary) to send their children to non-public schools.
The reason for this is "property rights". In the Bill of Rights, Amendment Article V to the Constitution, it is specified: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". When families (who send their children to nonpublic schools) are required to pay direct and indirect taxes for education, their property is being "taken for public use". They are not receiving "just compensation" unless they are provided with funding for education, equivalent to that of families that use the public schools.
There may be legitimate argument, concerning the expenditure of time and money to teach the religious portion of the curricula, in private or parochial schools. All schools should have in their curricula, sufficient instruction to meet Adler's third objective of public schooling (see Responsibility #31). That is, "preparation for discharging everyone's moral obligation to lead a good life and make as much of one's self as possible".
To the extent, that private and parochial schools exceed the intent of that objective by teaching specific religious tenets (et al), they should be held responsible without additional support of revenues from taxpayers. The non-public schools must accomplish the additional moral (religious) subject matter, within the same funding as public schools, by more effective and efficient administration. Alternatively, they may augment the public revenues, with direct tuition from the attending families.
A side complaint is that freedom of choice of schools will be inhibited for some families, who wish to enjoy academic advantages of a private or parochial school, but who do not wish their children to be instructed in the religious faith of that school. Surely these concerns can be alleviated, in most cases by substitute courses at the school, part day transportation to another school for substitute courses, etc. For those few who would not agree to reasonable accommodation, their choice of schools would be more restricted.
In like manner, families residing in non-urban or small urban communities would be limited to the one or more public, private, or parochial schools that are available. In this latter case, it would be even more requisite that the complainant family and the school board reach accommodation, with resort to mediation by higher authority if necessary.
Many families, private and parochial schools deem it necessary to call upon nature's God once or several times a day to better prepare the students in their "moral obligation to lead a good life and make as much of [themselves] as possible". The administration of the school must take action to minimize the discomfort that non or other religious students might feel.
This plus to the education process should not be lost in the public schools as well. In the latter case, the school administration and PTA should have the right and responsibility to choose appropriate prayers, and the manner of their accomplishment, to satisfy the diversity of the student body, with a minimum of discomfort to any individual student (again resorting to mediation if necessary).
Similarly most citizens believe the salute to the flag, and other ceremonies, are important in satisfying Adler's first objective of public schooling: "preparation for the duties of citizenship". Again, the school administration and PTA should appropriately resolve the issue, when one or more families find the practices at odds with their religious beliefs.
Another concern, of those opposing the change to freedom of choice of schools, is that the private and parochial schools would limit enrollment to the better or non-problem students, leaving a greater burden to the public schools. This objection can also be alleviated or eliminated.
Additional appropriations should be allocated to schools with special burdens above the "normal" school situation. These special burdens would include such things as families in or near poverty conditions, large numbers of single parent families, undesirable family environments, non or limited English speaking families, neighborhood crime and gangs, drugs, high incidence of learning difficulties, etc.
The additional appropriations, to be allocated to schools with special burdens, need not detract from the resources available to accomplish the "normal" educational challenge. They would come from services rendered by other government agencies, which have the missions to alleviate the particular problem in the broader society, as well as in schools (e.g., crime, poverty, physical handicaps, social work, drugs, etc.). "Abnormal" educational problems resolution (e.g., learning difficulties and language barriers) could come from the same source of revenues as "normal" education, or from special taxes as deemed appropriate by the legislatures.
Finally, Adler's "three objectives of any sound system of public schooling" cannot be achieved without discipline. All schools should be granted the right, assigned the responsibility, and provided the resources to maintain the environment on campus and during school hours that is requisite to effective learning. This should include such things as power to control the presence on campus, language and dress codes, civility, absence of harmful substances and weapons, etc. In the next essay a proposal will be advanced as to how to enforce this discipline.
Publius IV
|