Page 2 support nonpublic education in R.I. Closing of non-public schools will result in terrible overcrowding in already stress filled public classrooms. Many public schools are currently in a state of physical collapse through vandalism. Classrooms are being disrupted by undisciplined, problem children with teachers unable to enforce order because of lack of support from administrators and parents. HOW will children learn? Parents must have a choice of schools and atmosphere. Society needs their graduates. Principles of self-discipline, responsibility to self and society, accountability to divine authority which dominate much non-public education uphold the highest bradition of Americanism, Reports such as the Greely-Rossi Report in the 60's show that parochial schools, for instance, produce less bigoted, more open-minded individuals. The child's image of self is determined in large measure by how others treat him. Religious oriented schools value the individual stress his formation · build towards that self-discipline which is an essential part of true learning. When a child others to God then he is ready to begin contributing to others. The government is interested and concerned in the drug problem. Funds are being sought for rehabilitiation. Why not prevent the problem by working on the whole person by helping him from the beginning to know his reason for Page 3 being his purpose in life. The only drug rehabilitation programs that have succeeded are based on these principles. There is much talk about "accountability", "lack of pride" in workmanship religious based education makes the individual Many of our community leaders in F.I. are products of non-public education. benefit if some way can be found to provide funda for the continued existence of non-public education in R.I. Shirley M.Hewitt Senator PELL. There is no question that the administration wants to help, the Congress wants to help, it is the question of how we can do it and whether we can do it. Our final member of the panel is Mr. Robert P. Brolan. Mr. BROLAN. Thank you. Most of what is in my speech has been covered. Senator PELL. I believe I already have the benefit of your views on Wednesday night as well. Mr. BROLAN. That is correct. Some years ago, my father gave me an indication that he felt I would wind up on the wrong side of the road, instead of that, here I am in front of a congressional committee and I appreciate this opportunity. I hope my father is watching. I believe that we have a moral obligation to support the education of all children. On this basis, I have paid a share of my taxes toward educational needs prior to my children reaching school age, and it will continue to be my obligation to support education of children long after my own children nave completed their own education. I have no quarrel with this concept. A basic reason why the United States maintains its position of leadership in the world today is an educated citizenry. But, I also believe in freedom of choice as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I therefore chose nonpublic school education for my children because it is my choice, and is my choice based on the dictates of my conscience. I see no reason why my children should be discriminated against by not receiving some share of the tax dollars I am paying to support education. If, as a taxpaying voter, my family is entitled to a share of police and fire protection which my tax dollars purchase, why am I denied a share of the educational benefits also purchased with these same tax dollars? I believe it is reasonable to assume that if all the nonpublic schools are forced to close the increase in taxes for all taxpayers to support the total educational needs will be tremendously increased. Even though this be true, from a personal standpoint, I will gain because a proportionate increase in my taxes will be more than offset by my savings in tuition, transportation, and so forth. I point out the above to indicate that my basic interest in retaining this freedom of choice is not motivated by material selfishness. At present, we who chose nonpublic school education are not being subsidized. In truth, it is the public school system which is being subsidized by our tax dollars. I have no quarrel with the public school system. In fact, I have no quarrel with education per se, whether it be public or nonpublic school systems. My protest is directed against the present discriminating practice of the State's withholding a service from my children, a service for which I am being taxed, and a tax which I am obliged to pay by law. Could this not be construed as "taxation without representation," since I really have no choice in the matter? I was pleased to learn that the President of the United States is not unaware of the impending crisis in education and to that end, has already established a panel on nonpublic education to consider a tax credit plan to aid the parents of nonpublic school children for their educational expenses. I believe the time has come to equitably appor tion the available educational tax moneys in the manner for which such apportionment must have originally been intended. I cannot believe otherwise. In the present atmosphere, everyone is entitled to a college education and I don't quarrel with that, I would like to see them get all the education that they can. I remember when I went to college there were three ways in which you went. You either were fortunate and had your parents pay your way, if not you had a scholarship or otherwise you worked your way through. But, in no case was a taxpayer ever asked to directly hand you money to subsidize college education. I am not saying they weren't subsidized through other means but the taxpayers weren't expected to pay in any way or anybody in this room probably. your The current programs in effect are ruled constitutional as I understand. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that the student would have to attend a State college, I assume again he has the choice. For me, if it is constitutional at the college level to be subsidized, why is is unconstitutional at the secondary school level at this point. Frankly, I don't mind paying for private education for my children as long as I have the means to do it. My taxes are increased out of proportion and my taxes are increased to subsidize programs for education but that robs me of the opportunity to send my own children to college. I can send stranger's children to college but I can't afford to send my own children to a school that in my good conscience dictates that they should attend. That to me is discriminatory and I just don't believe that that is fair. I don't believe that that is what our forefathers intended when they set up the present arrangement and so-called separation. I was very much impressed in hearing your views on education and the views of several other speakers ahead of me and how strongly the majority do feel that some aid is necessary and hopefully will be forthcoming in the near future. Thank you very much. (The prepared statement of Mr. Brolan follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. BROLAN, WARWICK, R.I. Gentlemen, I believe that we have a moral obligation to support the education of all children. On this basis, I have paid a share of my taxes toward educational needs prior to my children reaching school age, and it will continue to be my obligation to support education of children long after my own children have completed their own educations. I have no quarrel with this concept. A basic reason why The United States maintains it's position of leadership in the world today is an educated citizenry. But, I also believe in Freedom of Choice-as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I therefore choose non-public school education for my children because it is my choice, and it is my choice based on the dictates of my conscience. I see no reason why my children should be discriminated against by not receiving some share of the tax dollars I am paying to support education. If, as a tax-paying voter, my family is entitled to a share of police and fire protection which my tax dollars purchase, why am I denied a share of the educational benefits also purchased with these same tax dollars? I believe it is reasonable to assume that if all the non-public schools are forced to close, the increase in taxes for all taxpayers to support the total educational needs will be tremendously increased. Even though this be true, from a personal standpoint, I will gain because a porportionate increase in my taxes will be more than offset by my savings in tuition, transportation, etc. I point out the above to indicate that my basic interest in retaining this Freedom of Choice is not motivated by material selfishness. At present, we who choose non-public school education are not being subsidized. In truth, it is the public school system which is being subsidized by our tax dollars. I have no quarrel with the public school system. In fact, I have no quarrel with education per se, whether it be public or non-public school systems. My protest is directed against the present discriminating practice of the State's withholding a service from my children—a service for which I am being taxed, and a tax which I am obligated to pay by law. Could this not be construed as "Taxation Without Representation”, since I really have no choice in the matter? I was pleased to learn that the President of the United States is not unaware of the impending crises in education and to that end, has already established a Panel on Non-Public Education to consider a tax credit plan to aid the parents of non-public school children for their educational expenses. I believe the time has come to equitably apportion the available educational tax monies in the manner for which such apportionment must have originally been intended. I cannot believe otherwise. Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed all of you for coming here. Now, there is one witness who made a special request that she be heard before the luncheon break as she has to leave town, so Mrs. Mildred Stanzler representing the Providence Chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women if you would step forward please. STATEMENT OF MRS. MILDRED STANZLER REPRESENTING THE PROVIDENCE CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN Mrs. STANZLER. Thank you, Senator, for graciously hearing us before the recess. This will be very brief. I would like to introduce Mrs. Herman Gross, the president of the Providence Chapter of Jewish Women and I am the legislative chairman of the group. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of our 500 Rhode Island members to express our opposition to any financial aid to private and parochial schools. The National Council of Jewish Women was founded in 1893 and has 330 sections throughout the United States comprising membership of 100,000 women. The Council of Women work in the public schools in a variety of ways. They are responsible for two new programs providing enrollment programs and service volunteers in a variety of preschool up to and including adult education. In Rhode Island the Providence chapter helped to support and have given a grant to public school children who participate in Rhode Island's School of Design Museum and is extremely active in urging support of a mandatory school lunch program. Our traditionally strong support for public education is rooted in our belief that American democracy depends on a strong system of public education to develop the highest potential of the individual. Recognizing the current financial crisis in education and recognizing the public education is a national concern we believe that any legislation which diverts public moneys from public education weakens the public school system and could lead to its destruction. This is a main concern of ours. Nonpublic school education is an alternative that is available to some and no one wishes to deprive the group of this right. We are not antiparochial school but. public funds cannot be diverted from public use at the expense of our |