continuous option of the tuition-free public school. The parent who chooses private education for his child has taken upon himself the burden of financing it. It is not easy to live in a free society. To be free does not mean to be propped up at the expense of one fellow taxpayers. The estimated cost of the PackwoodMoynihan bill is four to six billion dollars. As tax-payers we resent the idea that our taxation must continue high in order to both support the public schools and to subsidize private education. In conclusion, let me reiterate our objections to the proposed Packwood-Moynihan bill. The most strenuous objection is the violation of the principle of separation of church and state which would occur should this bill be enacted. Secondly, public education of our nation's youth would suffer as a result and since the overwhelming majority of young people are educated in the public schools, a majority of our future citizens would suffer. Lastly, but by no means leastly, since the sums involvel in lost tax revenue would be so enormous, is the cost of this legislation. There are so many more direct ways of ensuring quality education. Our district is probably typical of any large, urban district in that we have been suffering terribly in the last few years, and are in desperate need of teachers, special help for the many handicapped children who are being absorbed into our school system, and some type of education especially suited for the gifted child. These are only a few of the most urgent needs which have very little chance of being met if billions are drained away from tax revenues. We hope that you will be convinced by our objections and not allow this bill to reach the Senate floor. Very truly yours, KATHERINE COHEN, Parents Association, PS 173Q. DEAR SENATOR MOYNIHAN: I strongly object to the proposed Moynihan-Packwood bill which would allow tax credits for tuition to non-profit, private schools. This legislation would undermine the public school system, when it is in need of additional support. I also feel that it is unconstitutional, as it violates the principle of separation of church and state. I hope you will reconsider your support of this legislation. Sincerely yours, Katherine Cohen; Carol Kantro; Gertrude Kalish; Gurjil K. Mander; Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Day; Gary/Harold Johnson; Martha Jackson; Patricia Bagnati; Nancy Comerford; Bernard Hanisch; S. Hunter; Harvey Kimpton; L. Siper; Kathlyn Fabriel; James Fortis; L. Liss; Mrs. Genevieve Senono; John Schwartz; S. Hunter: Ann Jagorka; JANUARY 11, 1978. Re Packwood-Moynihan bill S-2142. DEAR SIRS: I am against the proposed Packwood-Moynihan bill. I feel that this legislation is unconstitutional as it violates the principles of separation of church and states. I also feel that such legislation would undermine the public educational system at a time when it is in need of additional support. In a district as small as ours, we must maintain our public schools. We must save public education!! We must save our school!! Very truly yours, (Mrs.) DELLA GOODE. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (By Joanne T. Goldsmith, executive director) The National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty represents 30 civil libertarian, educational, and religious organizations, all of whom support similar goals. A list of these organizations is attached to this statement. Our member organizations are dedicated to preserving religious liberty and the principle of separation of church and state and to maintaining the integrity and viability of public education. Our primary interest is in protection of the guarantees of the First Amendment to the Constitution which speaks to the basic right of all Americans to practice religion without government coercion, involvement or interference. The National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty wishes to be sure that this Committee and the Congress are aware that the great majority of Americans firmly oppose the use of government funds to help finance nonpublic schools. We hope that you will give full hearing and consideration to our point of view. The organizations participating in this Coalition, representing a broad crosssection of the American people, have consistently opposed all forms of such financial assistance. They have expressed their opposition in many ways, including general educational activities, expressions of view to legislators, support of referenda barring aid to nonpublic schools, and initiation and support of litigation against those legislative measures that have been approved. These efforts have had a substantial degree of success. The Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated all forms of nonpublic school aid except textbooks, transportation, and health and welfare on the elementary and secondary levels. The constitutional issue has been addressed by Leo Pfeffer, Legal Counsel to National PEARL. Rather than restate the relative issues, we would remind the Committee that we fully associate this organization with the statement previously presented by Mr. Pfeffer. The National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty believes firmly that separation of church and state is good for schools and good for religion. To believe that federal control would not follow federal dollars is indeed foolhardy. One of the major complaints leveled against the federal bureaucracy is the amount of control and paper work required by federal programs, educational programs as well as the myriad of other federal programs. From health care services to transportation to the defense department, all complain of the details and justifications required to spend the tax dollar. We understand that the particular proposal now before the Committee purports tax relief to parents, not direct aid to non-public schools. We believe that this should be understood for exactly what it is: an attempt to circumvent the Constitution without in any way addressing the legitimate need for additional assistance for institutions of higher learning or public elementary and secondary schools. The National Coalition supports the role of nonpublic schools-their right to exist is not questioned-but their right to tax credits or grants is. We do not believe it right or proper to ask the American taxpayers to support nonpublic schools which would have the effect of draining tax dollars away from the already underfinanced public schools. There are those who argue that nonpublic school parents carry an extra burden, are somehow "double taxed". Following that idea to its logical conclusion, then those who have no children should not have the responsibility of paying for schools nor should those who don't drive an autmobile pay for roads, crossing guards, or traffic lights. Some say that the constitutional right to send a child to whatever school one chooses, public or nonpublic, loses its value because to choose the nonpublic school one must pay an additional fee. Does that indeed make the constitutional right meaningless? We think not. The government does not subsidize newspapers or the distribution of leaflets. Does that make freedom of the press any less valuable? We think not. We believe that we pay taxes for the public good. We are taxed for public purposes such as police, fire protection, roads, parks, medicare and public housing. We pay for schooling, for every child, not just our own. We believe this is good public policy. We feel that the tuition tax credit proposal would have a discriminatory effect vis-a-vis public school parents and private school parents, in that it would be a distinct advantage to private school parents and might well trigger a stampede from the public schools to private schools. We feel that this could possibly have a corrosive effect on the public schools and could result in the public schools being populated almost entirely by the poor and racial minorities. Therefore, we oppose this measure on constitutional grounds and on grounds of practical public policy. PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS IN NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY American Association of School Administrators; American Civil Liberties Union; ACLU National Capital Area; ACLU of Connecticut; American Ethical Union; American Humanist Association; American Jewish Congress; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Illinois PEARL; Minnesota Civil Liberties Union; Missouri Baptist Christian Life Commission. Missouri PEARL; New York PEARL; Monroe County, New York PEARL; Nassau-Suffolk PEARL; Michigan Council Against Parochiaid; National Association of Catholic Laity; National Council of Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Women's Conference, American Ethical Union; Preserve Our Public Schools; Public Funds for Public Schools of New Jersey New York State United Teachers; Ohio Free Schools Association; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Unitarian Universalist Association. PHILADELPHIA, PA., January 18, 1978. Re Tuition tax credit bill. SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, (Attention: Michael Stern) DEAR REPRESENTATIVES: I am writing to my voice my concern over the above referenced bill which I feel has good intentions, but possible harmful repercussions. I am particularly concerned about this credit as it applies to elementary and secondary schools, which I consider a more necessary level of education than college and which have a greater impact on the institution of public education. First of all, it must be pointed out that sending a child to private or parochial schools is by choice, just as buying a second car, a dishwasher, or taking a ski weekend is by choice. If this is the choice, so be it. But I feel that public subsidy (which, in effect, this would be) of these choices is entirely inappropriate (the Constitutional issue of separation of church and state aside.) If these schools are a family's choice, they must also be their burden. Government does not own this problem. A more appropriate response from public officials would be toward public institutions such as: Public Education.-I realize that for many people this is not considered an alternative at all. I would like to point out that there are many to whom this is the only alternative, and it is from them that this bill will take. And it is from them-predominantly minority lower income groups-that we will feel the repercussions. The more public education is ignored and treated as a "non-alternative" by government and citizenry alike, the more it says to lower eschelon groups: You don't matter. I need only to remind you of the riots of the 1960's to say that people do respond to not carrying, to the denial of their existence and their dignity and it is often unpleasant when they do. And-when they do-we ALL pay. I do not object to giving middle income tax payers a break (especially since that happens to be my station in life) but if you do, take it from those who have more, not those who have less! I would welcome an effective tax reform that closed tax loopholes for the rich or offered tax cuts for us all. Furthermore, our current tax structure is not without benefits to the average middle-income family which allows: deductions of interest payments on mortgages and interest payments on other loans and credit cards, deductions on gasoline for one or more cars, deductions of sales and other taxes, etc. In addition, the homes owned by many middle-income families serve as a good investment, a hedge against inflation via appreciation of property values and also forced savings via increase in equity. There are those who have not even these advantages-this tax credit bill will ultimately take from them and their only source of education for their children. There is a real question in the the minds of many if public education will survive I feel this should be of concern to everyone. My two young (white) children attend an urban (Philadelphia) public school where they are in the minority racially. They are safe. they are happy, and they are learning (their scores on national tests have consistently been in the 90 percentile and above.) If I had believed all the negative things I had heard about public education without ever investigating for myself, I too would probably not have considered it a viable alternative. However, I did investigate and found that (at least for the schools in my area) all the things I had heard were either dead wrong or exaggerated to a point that no longer resembles reality. I do not wish to become involved in a discussion of public vs. private education, but I do want to point out that most of the "experts" who were so horrified by my choice of public education have never been in a public school nor sent their children to one. As for college, it's a moot point whether everyone should go and whether or not it is a necessity for job-finding. Furthermore, the middle-class may not qualify for federal assistance, but they do qualify for many other types of scholarships, many of which go begging because people haven't bothered to seek them out. My primary concern. however, is still what this tax credit would do to public education, which doesn't need any more excuses for not using it. Public education is often given the lowest priority by people in a position to do something about it. This is of concern for two important reasons: 1. Ordinary concern for fellow human beings, who regardless of their economic station in life, deserve a dignified means of improving their station if they so desire (i.e., via education). 2. The ultimate social and economic effects on our cities that continuing to ignore public education may bring, either with a bang: as in the rioting, or with a whimper as in the slow death of our major urban centers. The availability of good public education affects: The choice of home sites by young families. The tax base (and thereby the services provided). The crime rate (over 50% of all serious crimes are committed by juveniles). The level of social unrest. The influx of new business and the stability of old (and thereby employment levels). The stability of neighborhoods. The cost of welfare and unemployment. The sense of community and responsibility. The integration of society via well-integrated schools and ultimately wellintegrated neighborhoods. The ultimate health and vitality of any area. Whether one is a potato farmer in Maine or Idaho, or a raiser of hogs in Iowa, it is in the cities of this nation that we find our concentration of commodity and financial markets, our concentration of consumers, our major interlocking systems of transportation, our major ports and crossroads of activity. It is in the cities of our country that we obtain the crosspollination of ideas and cultures that has been so important to our success in the past and is so vital to the continued survival and growth of not just our cities, but the nation as a whole. We let our cities die at our own risk. This tax credit bill for elementary and secondary school levels of private and parochial education could be a nail in their coffin. Sincerely, (Mrs.) KAY ROOT. STATEMENT OF STEPHEN B. FRIEDHEIM, C.A.E., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Stephen B. Friedheim, Executive Vice President of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools (AICS). On behalf of some 500 residential, post-secondary educational institutions which comprise the membership of AICS I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to offer testimony on the several legislative proposals before the Committee which would authorize tax credits for educational expenses. AICS has quite a diversity of member institutions despite the fact that they are all residential and all are post-secondary schools and colleges. There are no public tax-supported institutions in AICS. All schools and colleges are either private tax-exempt (501(c)(3)) institutions or they are proprietary taxpaying corporations. About one-fourth of the AICS institutions award degrees under authority of the appropriate state education agency in which they are located. Each AICS institution is accredited either by the AICS Accrediting Commission or some other nationally recognized accrediting agency duly designated by the Commissioner of the United States Office of Education pursuant to PL 82-550 and subsequent legislation. Each AICS institution meets the definition of "an institution of higher education" purposes of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended pursuant either to Section 1201 (a) or Section 491(b) of that Act. There are about 300,000 students enrolled in AICS institutions. Initially let me state that our greater concern is that if there is to be legislation authorizing tax credits for educational expenses that the definition of eligible institutions equally include all accredited residential post-secondary institutions as does the Higher Education Act of 1965 in its definitions so that there will be no dscrimination among or between students in public tax-supported, private tax-exempt, or proprietary tax-paying institutions solely by reason of the form of institutional governance. We urge the Committee to incorporate, as do many of the bills before it, the existing standard educational definitions of institutional eligibility for at least three reasons, they are: (1) there is already in place an educationally sound system of eligibility presently administered by the Office of Education. (2) it would obviate the necessity of the Treasury Department having to Ideal with determinations of whether or not the institution has condoned segregation because to qualify for eligibility under the Higher Education Act that determination would have already been satisfactorily resolved. (3) it would otherwise preclude excessive government entanglement with the education community and particularly that element of that education community that has an affinity with or is controlled by religious institutions as are some of the AICS institutions. PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS SPECIAL CONCERNS By way of background, the Committee may remember the satisfaction manifested by the proprietary schools in AICS in 1967 and 1968 when the original Ribicoff-Dominick tax credit proposal, which by definition included residential accredited proprietary schools, was passed by the Senate. However, at that time students in residential accredited proprietary schools did not then have the benefits of the Opportunity Grants, the College Work-Study Program and the National Defense Student Loan Program. In those years, it appeared that a system of tax credits was the only financial entitlement that students in proprietary schools might be able to count on in addition to the infant Guaranteed Student Loan Program. However, in 1972 important amendments to the Higher Education Act gave equal access to all programs of student aid to students in accredited residential |