wrote a statement on the nonpublic school issue. He was Chairman of the Committee to Protect and Strengthen Public Schools at the time and I am taking the liberty of reading his testimony as representative of our organization's policy. "There is a firm belief among many Americans that the public schools have an unique and vital function. They serve as no other institution does, to fashion a cohesive society, to instill loyalty to our country, and to teach democratic values. Unlike their nonpublic counterparts, the public schools are dedicated to serve children of all races, colors, creeds; of all ethnic, cultural, social, economic backgrounds.

"Our public schools make education available to all. The nonpublic schools are quite different: they are operated by special groups to serve special private purposes. (At this point it is important to make unequivocably clear that opposition to tax aid to nonpublic schools in no way implies a lack of respect for their right to exist and flourish.) A parochial school is as different from a public school as a Christian Science Reading Room is different from a public library and this difference makes the public library eligible and the other, ineligible for tax support. "The parochial school is actually the church engaged in one of its most important activities, education. It is a place of sectarian indoctrination operated for religious ends and purposes. Dr. George N. Shuster, a well-known Catholic educator, expressed it this way: "The major purpose of the Catholic school is primarily to develop religious knowledge and practice.' Father Mullin, Superintendent of Catholic Schools in Rhode Island has made similar comments as have a number of church leaders at various times. It can hardly be denied, therefore, that parochial schools are maintained to preserve and strengthen the faith. Tax aid to church schools eases the financial burden of these schools thereby enabling the church to continue and to expand its program of religious instruction.

"If the Constitutional 'free exercise of religion' means anything, it means that each of us has the right to support only the religious institution of our free choice and the right not to support any institution of religion. It is apparent that coercing citizens to support the doctrinal teachings and the spiritual objectives of a particular church violates the fundamental principle of 'freedom of religion'. "A successful attempt by the church to secure public funds for its schools would undermine not only the 'freedom of religion' principle, it would destroy another cherished American tradition 'separation of state and church'.

"In addition to the constitutional issues involved tax aid to nonpublic schools is contrary to sound public policy. There is just so much tax money available for education. The diversion of public funds to nonpublic schools would disastrously weaken the fiscal foundation of the public system that is already critically underfinanced. Public schools increasingly deprived of urgently needed funds would become the dumping grounds for racial and ethnic minorities, for the lowincome, the handicapped, the retarded, the problem students, and others not acceptable in nonpublic schools.

"The nonpublic schools are racially segregated schools. Nationwide, less than 1% of the students in nonpublic schools are black. In New York City, statistics reveal that while less than 10% of the children in nonpublic schools are blacks and Puerto Ricans, more than 48% of the total school population are blacks and Puerto Ricans.

"The parochial schools have always been segregated schools. The Courts have held that tax-supported schools may not practice segregation. The focus of Court decisions has been on racial segregation but racial segregation is only one form of student isolation practiced by parochial schools. One of the purposes of the church school has been to isolate the children of a particular religion from others holding different beliefs. The evidence speaks for itself. How many Catholic or Protestant students attend Jewish parochial schools? How many Jewish or Catholic students are enrolled in Seventh-Day Adventists' parochial schools? Denominational control and religious dogma offer effective barriers to those who do not share the same beliefs.

"Tax aid to nonpublic schools would be unsound public policy because it Iwould tend to undermine interfaith harmony on account of calamitous competition. There are approximately 250 known religious sects in the United States. Under a system of tax aid for nonpublic schools, religious groups would have the right to establish their own schools. Consider the arm-twisting that will occur as clergymen and lobbyists of the various faiths put pressure on politicians for larger shares of the tax dollars. Will schools operated by Jehovah's Wit

nesses. Seventh-Day Adventists, Mennonites, the Amish, by the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Black Moslems be treated fairly and equally when funds are disbursed by elected officials?

"Our society is split as never before: the generation gap, the drug problem, the Vietnam War issue, the black-white conflict. There certainly is a limit to the amount of divisiveness a society can endure before complete collapse. Those who would risk an eventuality in their pursuit of public dollars must bear an awesome responsibility for the consequences."

To my husband's concerned testimony I add only the plea that we perpetuate the America in which he believed, the same America in which President John F. Kennedy believed, an America "where separation of church and state is absolute . . . where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference".

I respectfully urge you to use your influence and authority to assure that no church school is granted any public funds.

Senator PELL. Our next witness is Mr. Adlard Caovette, representing St. Joseph's Parish Council, Woonsocket, R.I.

STATEMENT OF ADLARD CAOVETTE, MEMBER, ST. JOSEPH'S PARISH COUNCIL, WOONSOCKET, R.I.

Mr. CAOVETTE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Adlard Caovette and I reside at 2134 Mendon Road in the city of Woonsocket. I am a Catholic, I married and the father of three school-age children. I am a property owner, a taxpayer in the city of Woonsocket for over 20 years.

I am here as an interested individual and not as a representative of any group as such, although I am a member of the Woonsocket Regional School Board and St. Joseph's Parish Council. To begin with, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings relative to the financial aid to nonpublic schools, whatever the denomination may be. There is no question that these institutions are in dire need of help. The news media is constantly reporting the closing of one school or another due to their inability to meet the rising costs of studies, salaries, and expenses in proportion to their rights. The area of my concern has principally been the parochial school system. Schools have operated for many years and have never been subsidized by anyone but their own local parishoners and the tuition paid by their students according to what their ability is to pay.

I say and I am certainly sure this committee must agree, that this type of school in reality has subsidized the public schools in the community where they are located throughout the country. Were it not for their help in education for thousands of children, this burden would fall on the taxpayers of the community, immaterial as to the religious belief of these taxpayers.

As an example, should the parochial schools of the city of Woonsocket be closed, it would be presently impossible for that city to educate all of its children in the public school system whether they have double or triple sessions. It is physically impossible. The present schools are already overtaxed with children and what would happen if another 3,000 or 4,000 kids are pushed into that system at one time? You know, I know, and everyone knows there would be complete chaos. What would happen to local tax rates in Woonsocket? There would be an additional $2,700,000 increased expenditure at the present total

budget of approximately $13 million. This, gentlemen, would not include the cost of the capital improvements such as new schools at today's costs and also the time required to construct these schools. The city would be faced with an impossible burden. The increase in the tax rate would be astronomical and many, many homeowners as well as tenants would suffer an increased cost of rents and mortgages particularly with today's cost of living.

Many would sell their homes if able to and/or move elsewhere, possibly closer to their employment and into another community which may be experiencing the same problem or shortly will be. This example of the city of Woonsocket does not restrict it to that city. It is representative of what is happening or will happen in many cities and towns throughout our Nation. Will you not agree that the parochial schools are really subsidizing the taxpayers throughout the country? It is now time for the situation to be reversed somewhat without placing any financial burden on anyone. The Federal Government spends billions on supersonic planes and scuttles it before getting it off the ground. It sends billions to other countries and receives insult after insult and sometimes finally is asked to leave or leaves millions in other countries. Farmers or so-called farmers are paid billions not to grow crops. There are so many areas of waste and yet nonpublic schools are allowed to close or struggle because some individual or organization continually cry about separation of church and state.

When all of the moneys given by the Federal Government to other governments are they asked if this money is to be spent for support of nonpublic schools?

Gentlemen, I feel that separation of church and state is not a legitimate reason to deny students attending nonpublic schools and I agree with the Constitution of the United States and the bill of rights when they were written to protect an oppressed people not from the church but the church from a dictatorial government. It does not say it cannot support private or nonpublic schools, it allows everyone the right to freedom of speech and religion. It would appear that today everyone is reading something else into the Constitution to suit their particular need. Let us look for the reasons behind the Constitution.

As to the method of subsidizing, I feel a direct payment for the school system rather than a fringe benefit of school lunch is necessary. The cost of salaries and expenses is really the cost of the dilemma that we are in. In closing, I, as an individual, am requesting that the committee with Senator Pell as chairman be in touch with our legislative leaders in Washintgon, Senator Pastore, Congressman St Germain, and Congressman Tiernan to elicit their help to find a way to assist in one way or another, these school systems which, in so many ways, is now floundering in a country based on justice and equality. One point further, Senator, that I would like to bring up and what Mrs. Finkelstein said is that they are dedicated to a better school system, better public school system and I agree with her, but I would like to ask Mrs. Finkelstein this question: There has been instances of the American flag pulled off the schoolrooms in public schools where it has gone up and it has been pulled down.

I would like to know how many flags are pulled down in nonpublic schools? Thank you.

Senator PELL. I am not sure that that is a germane question. I would agree that probably one of the advantages or reasons for church education is that the discipline is greater there, but I don't think the question is germane to what we are trying to do at all. With regard to how we can help, I think you will find that all the members of the Rhode Island delegation share this same view. I can't speak for them but you know, you are in direct communication with them yourself. The problem is to make sure that these needs are understood at the Federal level as well as here, I think, the administration is finding out itself that to translate the words of its President into action is difficult. Perhaps this hearing will come up with some ideas. So far, I regret to say that we haven't come up with a new idea although we are looking for them.

Mr. CAOVETTE. Personally speaking, I feel that as to the tax program I am not looking for any tax concession to send my children to parochial school, I will take care of that. I am saying please keep the schools open.

I wish I could go along with the feeling of some people that the schools will exist for a number, say 3 or 4 years, but I doubt very very strongly and I feel that we have had one more year to go. If we do not have any relief they will not be existant. I am saying I will take care of my concession, I will take care of my own children and it is not the free school lunch program, I am not looking for free books, I am saying I want the system continued so that I may be allowed to send my kids to it, that I be allowed the choice of sending my children to a school that shows the moral values and the discipline that I want my children to have.

Senator PELL. The point at issue is not your right to send the children to the school, the question is whether your tax dollars and Mrs. Finkelstein's should be into private schools. This is the great basic point that we are arguing back and forth, not denying the right of your children to be taught anything.

Mr. CAOVETTE. What am I putting my taxes in for, Senator?

Senator PELL. To send them to a school that is offered to you and we hope that there is sufficient alternatives so that if you don't find the public school system to your liking, there is another school system. The question is to figure out a way of helping the children and skin the cat in another way. What we are looking for is an answer to the problem without violating the Constitution.

Mr. CAOVETTE. I am certain with the delegation in Washington and with other able people such as yourself, a way can be found, a way can always be found.

Senator PELL. I don't share that conviction, I wish that I did. I know that in my community, Newport, in the past year we have seen the closing of three parochial schools, so when you say you have 3 years to go, you are lucky. I can assure you that I will do whatever I can.

Mr. CAOVETTE. You may rest assured that I will contact my Congressman and also Senator Pastore to see that he also moves in that direction.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed for your testimony. Our next witness is Mr. E. H. Gardiner, representing the Cranston Assistance to Parents and Education.

STATEMENT OF E. H. GARDINER, REPRESENTING THE CRANSTON ASSISTANCE TO PARENTS AND TEACHERS

Mr. GARDINER. Thank you, Senator, for inviting me here today. Senator Pell, members of the clergy and fellow taxpayers, this hearing will bring out the proponents for aid to nonpublic schools and those who violently oppose it. Ironically both sides will be morally right. My personal feeling is that those who demand aid, rather than ask for it, are just as wrong as those who will not listen, concede or offer a constructive solution.

Whether one agrees that the nonpublic schools offer equal educational values to those of the public schools is immaterial. The one value that cannot be overlooked is that every child who is educated in a nonpublic school on an elementary level saves his community $750. On the secondary level, the saving to the community increases to $900. The willingness of parents to pay tuition for nonpublic schools should be encouraged.

The average property taxpayer in Cranston pays $600. Of this, $400 goes to education. The property taxpayer who, through freedom of choice, sends his child to the public school receives a just return for his tax dollars. The property taxpayer who uses the same freedom of choice to send his child to a nonpublic school receives no return for his tax dollars that are spent for education. When you live in a community, however, I believe that the cost for the services provided by that community should be shared by all. If I, therefore, demanded to be repaid the full $400 spent for education, it would be wrong. I feel it would be wrong because if the nonpublic schools fail, then I, as a taxpayer, would have the right to send my children to the public school even though I would be losing my constitutional right of freedom of choice.

Instead of arguing the value of public or nonpublic schools, why not focus on the new concept of helping "educating parents." By reducing the tax burden on these "educating parents," we would only be recognizing their problems in the same way that the problems of the aged, the blind and the veteran are recognized in the form of a tax exemption. When families are struggling to educate their children, it doesn't mean a damn what school systems they chose, they need help. “Educating parents," especially those who pay property taxes, are overburdened. Property taxpayers pay a tax of, on the average, three times that of a nonproperty owner. Yet, both share equally in the services provided by the community. This is not a rash statement. I have letters from real estate firms attesting to it.

A property tax exemption for "educating parents" has been introduced in the general assembly for a Supreme Court ruling. A plan called CAPE which would reduce the "educating parents" property tax by $100 per family. Would a $100 rebate to an over-burdened educating parent be so hard for opponents to accept? It would mean that the average nonpublic educating parent would still be contributing $300 of his tax dollars to the public school system and the $100 rebate would allow him to support the nonpublic school.

The $100 rebate would also give a helping hand to the public school parent. He's got problems, too. The effect of inflation on the costs of