Saving Parochial Schools

Parochial schools, which enroll some 90% of all private-school students in the U.S., are in deep financial trouble. And the Supreme Court has not yet decided how far the separate states can go in using public funds to rescue them.

The real question is whether the Court is inclined to interpret the First Amendment in terms of absolutism or pragmatism. In recent years, the nation's social needs have modified the separation of church and state. Churches receive many kinds of government aid for their hospitals, poverty work and other public services. The rationale, as lawmakers see it, is that churches play a key role in the welfare state. Besides, the denial of such aid might violate the First Amendment's "free exercise" of religion clause. What limits, if any, remain?

In 1947, the Supreme Court allowed states to finance bussing for parochial-school students; in 1968, it approved free textbooks for secular courses. More direct state aid seemed impermissible. Then came the Pennsylvania Education Act of 1968, the first of its kind in the U.S. That remarkable law allows the state to pay parochial schools the "actual cost" of teachers' salaries, textbooks and teaching aids in four secular fields: mathematics, modern foreign languages, physical sciences and physical education. The state pays the bill ($4,000,000 last year) solely through its income from horse and harness racing.

For added constitutional justification, the law was drafted to apply to all non-public schools. The ironic result is that some well-off private schools are now getting support. Because of their higher instructional costs and all-secular staffs, their share of public funds is often higher than that of parochial schools. For example, the Baldwin School, a prosperous private institution in Bryn Mawr, receives $102.68 per pupil, while the average parish and diocesan school gets only $8.

Long-Run Loss? The law has just been upheld by a 2-to-1 vote of a panel of three federal judges. Its chief purpose, said the majority, is to "promote the welfare of the people." While it may indirectly benefit sectarian teaching, the state remains neutral toward religion--just as it does in providing parochial schoolchildren with free lunches, a practice already considered legal. Because the Pennsylvania law does not "advance or inhibit religion," said the majority, it satisfies the First Amendment.

Not so, argued the lone dissenter, Judge William H. Hastie, a leading Negro jurist and former governor of the Virgin Islands. As he sees it, the law's real aim is not to promote the general welfare but to save parochial schools. Wrote Hastie: "When the state reimburses a sectarian school for any part of the curricular costs of a teaching program, it directly finances and supports a religious enterprise. Constitutionally, such subsidizing of a religious enterprise is not essentially different from a payment of public funds into the treasury of a church." The fact that such aid incidentally relieves the state of the burden of educating more children at full cost, said Hastie, does not make it any less unconstitutional.

Opponents of the Pennsylvania law plan an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Ohio have enacted similar laws to help their troubled parochial schools. Many other states are considering a move in Pennsylvania's direction. Whatever the outcome, critics argue that a victory for nonpublic schools in the Supreme Court may produce a loss in the long run. For one thing, there might be less money to go around for public schools, especially those in the ghetto. In addition, critics note, to win tax support the church schools must prove that they provide a public service and also submit to more legislative regulation. The result could be less religion in parochial schools and ultimate secularization.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.