Senator PELL. These are public school parents? Mr. AYRAULT. These are community parents. Random samples from communities where a voucher experiment might be conducted. Senator PELL. Taxpayers? Mr. AYRAULT. Yes. Senator PELL. Going back to the so-called segregation academies, how do you expect to exclude them? You mentioned they were not members of the organization. How can you make sure they are not? Mr. POTTER. Well, should such a school apply for membership, we would simply find out what they felt, what their position and policy was, and if they were not on an open admission basis we would not admit them. Senator PELL. I see. In other words, your association is open only to schools that do not segregate; is that right? Mr. POTTER. The CAPE organization is open only to organizations of schools which subscribe to a policy or upon admission. Now, speaking in my capacity for the National Association of Independent Schools we require as a criterion for membership an open admissions policy in all our schools, and that would also be true at the State and regional levels. The present IRS ruling is that you cannot be a tax-exempt organization unless you have an open enrollment policy. Senator PELL. I am not sure it is quite that simple, because in the South there will be schools that say they might have an open admissions policy but don't have, and so on. How would you-how do you try to handle that? Mr. POTTER. Well, I can speak only for my own organization now on this point, because we deal directly with schools, and I am sure others can speak to it, too. We look very carefully at schools applying for membership. They have to supply a good deal of information about their sponsorship, their finances, their policies and practices. They have to be known to others, and to be periodically evaluative. Senator PELL. I understand some of the escape schools do have IRS certification; they shouldn't have, but they have. Mr. POTTER. There is no question but that enforcement of the IRS provision is a difficult one. It should be pointed out that it is perfectly possible for a school to exist in an area where there are no minority students to enroll. Of course, there is a factor of good faith in any individual situation, but over any period of time, the good faith is bound to be evident, or not evident, on the basis of the record, it seems to me. Mr. AYRAULT. I could speak to the OEO Voucher requirement in this connection. Any participating school must show, in its actual voucher enrollment, the same proportion of minority students as were available in the applicant pool. There is an agency which monitors this. Senator PELL. Now, these various Federal programs that are presently being used to help students in nonpublic schools, which ones in particular have you found most useful, most helpful? Rabbi GOLDENBERG. Well, title II of the ESEA is something we can live with very confortably, because this applies to the nonpublic school student across the Board, audio-visual aids or books, depending on the local area and the local school. Title I on the other hand, in our experience, holds no goodwill of the legislature that is there; it is there, but when it comes to implementation of the legislature, we find much that is wanting. This is about all that we are receiving on the Federal level. May I add just this one remark? There is, of course, the Supreme Court decision about excessive entanglement, and I think this arises out of the fact that when we think of the teaching procedure we see someone who is alive, a human being, a person; we see someone who is alive and dynamic and afraid of excessive entanglement, but a TV received, lab equipment—is not alive and does not fear the excessive entanglement with equipment. Or let's say certain administrative services, or a filing cabinet. In other words, it can be much more done with the nonpublic schools with no fear of excessive entanglement creeping in in terms of material, or in terms of facilities, in terms of mandated services which are secular and non-ideological. I think this is an area of explanation. Dr. D'ALESSIO. I would agree with Rabbi Goldenberg, specifically as regards ESEA title II. I think that our particular participation has been most equitable in that area. Title I, I think has been most interesting especially in terms of the Airlie House Conference to which the previous witness alluded. One of the recommendations of that conference was that ESEA title I be fully funded. It is very interesting, that when public and nonpublic school administrators sit down, this is the one title they single out full funding. We participate in title III, but I think if you would survey the nonpublic school administrators across the country, they would be generally disappointed in their participation in this title. The President's Council on Innovative and Supplementary Centers is conducting a survey of nonpublic school involvement in ESEA III. The other programs in which we are involved and for which we need data are school food services, special milk, and driver education. Senator PELL. I was looking through the table that Mr. Kurzman gave us earlier, and there in title II normally $5 million available to nonpublic schools-I wish it was $5 billion. However, there is a great deal more money invested for nonpublic schools in other titles of the ESEA. I was wondering why these are not taken more advantage of by the nonpublic schools? Mr. AYRAULT. I can speak to title III, sir. I am a member of the State title III Advisory Council. It is important to note that title III was intended to stimulate imaginative and innovative thinking among schools. You really cannot do that among private schools unless you can allow them to initiate a project. But the whole thrust of the bill has been turned around in respect to private schools to require participation by nonpublic school students. Because States must meet legal guidelines, they sometimes make sure that some private school children participate in the programs. But the aim was to stir teacher imagination; title III is not an operational bill. The fact is that you cannot realistically ask one group, one system, that has operational responsibility for its own schools to administer a program to benefit other schools. Public schoolmen are pressed, they are busy men, they work on their proposals, and then at the last minute, just before it needs to be submitted they will call up the local private school and say "Will you please come in and sign this document because we have to show private school participation." And you have a few hours to study the proposal, sign it and send it in. We obviously wish to avoid making a fuss and forcing the legal issue because we try very hard to maintain positive, cooperative working relationships with the public schools. Senator PELL. In toto there is available $5 million under title II, $10 million in title III, and $47 million under title I. Why is this not taken advantage of by nonpublic schools? STATEMENT OF REV. JOHN PAUL CARTER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EPISCOPAL SCHOOLS, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. CARTER. I am John Paul Carter, executive secretary of the National Association of Episcopal Schools. I think the quick answer is implied in the very question you asked. There is a significant difference between title II and title III. Title II suits all of us best because it is a straight per capita matter. It applies to public and nonpublic alike, so that if you can establish accurately what your population is then your access to the benefits of that title are quite clear cut-it has to do with the population strictly and it has saved an enormous amount of redtape. With the other title-III-we are subject to levels of bureaucratic approval which are frequently arbitrary, which are often incompatible to us, and which require adjustments that are to our disadvantage. The result is that the public institutions get a much higher proportion of these funds, and the nonpublic schools receive much less in proportion. For example, Mr. Ayrault has discussed experimental work. Most of the money has gone to university laboratory studies, and very little to schools themselves, especially nonpublic schools. Generally, to satisfy requirements that the nonpublic segment be included, a few nonpublic children will be included-in test populations, for example-to legitimatize the matter. So the equal terms of application of the title II system has been a major advantage to us. Senator PELL. But you must have your own redtape artists, too. Can't they unlock these―get inside there for these larger amounts of funds? Mr. CARTER. The problem is not only the redtape itself, but also the approval of public officials who are very often not too cordial toward the eligibility of the nonpublic sector. Even so we have found that it is extremely difficult to wrestle with the redtape and secondly, we have found that the application of this on a population basis has been quite just. (The letter and prepared statement of Rev. John Paul Carter follows:) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EPISCOPAL SCHOOLS As I promised, when we chatted after the appearance of I believe the statement is self-explanatory and properly It was a great pleasure to meet with you and to chat Very cordially yours, John Paul Caster (The Rev. John Paul Carter Executive Secretary JPC: ab Cc: Mr. Stephen Wexler |