# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S354
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

354 PARISH EDUCATION AND SERVICES

3. State and Federal Aid for Nonpublic Schools
Changed Attitudes

Attitudes toward public aid for church-related schools
have changed since 1965 when the Synod passed a reso-
lution that federal aid is acceptable for children in Lu-
theran schools “so long as it does not interfere with the
distinctive purposes for which such schools are main-
tained” (Proceedings, Resolution 7-03, pp. 153 —54).

Nationally, more legislators and citizens find some
form of public aid for church-related schools acceptable.
Some prestigious educational leaders have made public
statements favoring it. A United States Chamber of
Commerce Task Force published a statement favoring it.
Legislators frequently change opposition to support
when church-school representatives state clearly the
case for support of church-related schools. In the church
the Conference of Education Executives in December
1968 passed an unequivocal resolution asking the Board
of Parish Education and District boards to take a more
aggressive stance in seeking public aid.

Citizens for Educational Freedom, an organization of
individuals seeking public aid for church-related schools,
is making its influence felt at the state level and nation-
ally. The majority of this group are Roman Catholic, but
Christian Reformed people, Orthodox Jews, Lutherans,
and others also have joined the organization and support
its program.

Opposition

The chief organized outspoken opponents of public
aid are the American Civil Liberties Union, the American
Jewish Congress, and Protestants and Other Americans
United (POAU). Challenges to legislation favoring aid to
church-related schools, parents or children, are likely
to come from one of these groups or from several jointly.

Federal Benefits

On the federal level, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 in several of its titles calls on public
schools to provide benefits on a proportionate basis to
pupils in church-related schools. The benefits have not
been proportionate thus far, partly because of disinterest
in some states and among some public education offi-
cials, and partly because church school officials have not
made the necessary effort to have their children partici-
pate. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is
based on the child benefit theory, that is, the theory that
benefits are allowable only if they come to the child
and not the school. This restricts the forms of aid con-
siderably.

The two chief titles under which benefits have come
to schools of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod are
Titles I and II. Title I makes money available to educa-
tionally deprived children. In a recent year the students
in about 100 Missouri Synod elementary and secondary
schools benefited to the extent of about $100,000 under
this title. Title II makes benefits available chiefly for
library resources. In a recent year the students in about
600 schools received about $200,000 from this source.
During a current year the appropriation for Title II for

all schools is sharply reduced. In either case, the bene-
fits under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act to Lutheran schools have been minimal, considering
overall school costs.

A live discussion of “block grants” versus ‘“‘categorical
aid” has been going on for some time. Under the “block
grant” system lump appropriations would be made to
the states. In some states church-related schools would
experience difficulty in sharing in these grants because
the state constitutions seem to prohibit it. If the Con-
gress were intent on providing benefits to church-related
schools in such states, a separate organization to dis-
tribute the funds equitably would probably be required.

State Aid

A number of states will consider legislation to provide
aid to students in church-related schools. In Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and perhaps other states,
representatives of church-related schools have formed
organizations to present their views and to reinforce
their requests. At least one District Board of Education
and Board of Directors have called on the District con-
stituency to become active in seeking state aid. This is
in the American democratic tradition which operates on
the basis of interest groups. In any democratic country,
those who fail to state their needs and insist on their
rights are usually left out of consideration. Legislators
and U.S. Office of Education officials have not hesitated
to impress representatives of church-related schools
with the fact that unless they join hands and speak with
one voice, they will not get far in securing public aid.

On the state level, the chief benefits sought are bus
transportation, textbooks, and tuition rebates. To be
reasonably sure that the legislation will be constitutional,
the aid is being sought for the child or the parent, not the
school or the institution. Several states have passed
legislation which provides some benefits. In other states
bus transportation, textbooks, and tuition grants for
pupils in church-related schools are being systematically
promoted. The favorable ruling of the United States
Supreme Court in the New York textbook case, which
also the Missouri Synod supported with an amicus curiae
brief developed by its legal counselor, Mr. James P.
Brown, is adding impetus to these efforts.

In 18 states bus transportation is available to children
in nonpublic schools under varying terms, sometimes
only along the public school bus route, usually not across
district lines, or only for those who pay the cost. In
addition, some states provide transportation under speci-
fied restrictions, such as transportation for handicapped
children or for children in dual enrollment.

Thirteen states provide other benefits, for example:
health and welfare services, textbooks loans and use of
other curricular materials, driver education, or service
personnel such as psychologists, nurses, or speech
correctionists.

Cautions

Districts or Lutheran individuals becoming active in
behalf of public aid either on the state or the federal