Anti-Catholic Bigotry and How It Affects Public Education
- on 07.23.05
- General
- 10 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
I received an email yesterday from the Illinois Loop. If you do not receive their email or visit their site, please start. They have lots of wonderful information about education in Illinois and how other States rules can affect ours here.
The article yesterday was about Catholic Schools and how they can give us models for improving public schools. It also delved into the history of Catholic Schools and how Anti-Catholic Bigotry affected our schools in the 1870’s and still does to this day in 37 states including Illinois through Blaine Amendments. These amendments and its variations are named after James G. Blaine. Blaine had tried to make his amendment (See Below) a part of the U.S. Constitution in 1875, but failed to do so by 4 votes in the Senate. His ilk was able to pressure states to pass his amendment banning school funding to sectarian (Catholic) schools.
| 1No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.” |
|
3Here is a chronological list of twenty states that adopted constitutional Blaine amendments:
1844, New Jersey; 1850, Michigan; 1851, Ohio & Indiana; 1855, Massachusetts; 1857, Iowa; 1868, South Carolina & Arkansas; 1870, Illinois; 1872, Pennsylvania; 1875, Alabama & Missouri; 1876, North Carolina & Texas; 1877, Minnesota & Georgia; 1879, California & Louisiana LA; 1885, Florida; and, 1897, Delaware. Seventeen states entered the union with Blaine amendments but some did so under duress when Congress indicated it would not grant statehood until such a provision were included: 1848, Wisconsin; 1857, Oregon; 1859, Kansas; 1864, Nevada; 1867, Nebraska; 1872, West Virginia; 1876, Colorado; 1889, Montana, North & South Dakota, and Washington; 1890, Idaho & Wyoming; 1896, Utah; 1907, Oklahoma; and 1912, New Mexico & Arizona. A few caveats are in order. First, Blaine amendments are not all created equal. Second, the inclusions of some states on the list is debatable. For example, Pennsylvania is listed yet both the state House, in 1995, and Senate, in 1991, have ruled that vouchers are constitutional. Third, the list is indicative, not definitive. Constitutions get amended from time to time. Michigan, listed for 1850, prior to Blaine’s effort, adopted its present extreme restriction in 1970. |
Why is not funding sectarian schools a bad thing? State money should only go to sectarian schools. There is separation of Church and State. Let’s compare the definitions of sectarian from now and then and you’ll see the difference.
Now:
|
4 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect. 2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan. 3. Narrow-minded; parochial. |
Then:
| 2The word sectarian did not refer to a general Protestant outlook. It would mean, in the beginning, sects within Protestantism. Very quickly, however, sectarian would be narrowed to take on a more specific definition as the debate over public school funding began: Catholic. |
As you can see, sectarian did not exclude religious schools. It’s only aim was to exclude Catholic Schools. As a matter of fact, the King James Bible was readily taught in schools at that time. Since all the Protestant denominations used this version, it was accepted as non-sectarian.
As a quick side note here, Public Schools did not start out as government funded. They started out as privately funded and were called public schools because they did not violate the tenants of other’s religions in the practice of teaching. All children were welcome to attend and not denigrated for their beliefs in the teaching.
How do we correct the situation today and reverse the bigotry that has brought us to this point? It’s starting to change finally. Here is a quote from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from Mitchell v. Helms, June 28, 2000
| “[N]othing in the establishment clause requires the exclusion of pervasively sectarian schools from otherwise permissible aid programs, and other doctrines of this court bar it. This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” |
Pennsylvania has ruled vouchers constitutional. There are many others now as well. Massachusetts has its own version. Cities like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington D.C. are using them as well. It is time we did here in Illinois as well. Vouchers help all children get educated. It fosters competition that helps all students and teachers. It allows the parents to choose the best school for their child. It rids us of one more legacy or bigotry.
For more links and information relating to this topic, visit the Illinois Loop and Blaine Amendments.
Sources:
1Text of the Federal Blaine Amendment (1875)
2Anti-Catholicism and the History of Catholic School Funding
3The Pain of Blaine (Amendments) Is On the Wane?
4Dictionary.com
Carnival Time
It’s back, the Carnival of Education. Thanks to the Wonks for another chance to host.
I continue to value the public in public schools. I just can’t get passed the idea that private schools can and do exclude the hardest case kids, because they are not required to take them or keep them. Of course, their success rate goes up. I do however, value the innovative ideas that the charter movement brings to the table, and wonder if vouchers would inspire more of the kind of reform we need in this country. But as long as private schools can be exclusive, I am not on board.
The idea of vouchers for private schools is a complicated topic:
http://www.christianlaw.org/vouchers.html
I believe private schools would not be as restrictive if they recieved state funding. They would have resources then to accomplish more and with more kids. Many restrict their enrollment now because of financial reasons. They have to keep tuition down so parents can afford it.
I would also so that the majority of schools are of a religious nature. They are also restrictive in that way as well. They want to make sure that parents and kids attending the school want to be taught with a religious framework that matches the philosophy of the school.
Again, funding would provide the means to accept more students. It could also conceivably entice the rise of schools designed specifically to meet the needs of special needs children. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if parents of Special Needs kids had a choice to attend a school that met all the needs their child.
Your history of public schools is a bit naïve: Public schools in the 19th century (and well into the 20th century) were actually explicitly protestant establishments. This is the primary reason for the existence of Catholic schools. Catholic parents were forbidden to send their children to public schools because of the protestant indoctrination which took place there.
That said, my big concern about any sort of scheme which sends money to private schools has nothing to do with religion or exclusion but a simple question: Whence will the money come? Right now every parent who sends their child to a private school is subsidizing public education by eliminating the state’s obligation to cover the incremental cost of their child’s attendence. This is a HUGE hidden subsidy to public education and I think that many voucher proponents are disingenuous in ignoring it.
I think vouchers CAN be a complicated subject. In my opinion, there would have to be an understanding of church and state and… what that would curtail.
Government should NOT be allowed to interfere with religious teaching in the school. That would mean the practice of teaching creationism as fact and evolution as theory. I don’t need to go over all the special programs that one gets in a private school setting. As far as regulating what academics they teach… I believe that those should be VERY BASIC (notice I said BASIC!!!) scope & sequence of what the child should be taught in a given grade level. In my opinion, that would fulfill governmental responsibilities and if that didn’t, then the government should not be involved in regulating it at all.
For the children whose parents don’t care (as some like to point out), those numbers are very low, but everyone always makes special allowances for them as though they were a majority. Maybe those children should be taken over by the state instead of ALL the children being a product of government education. Even then, there should be EVERY consideration before something like that would happen. Parents have a right to do what is best for their children as THEY see fit.
To me…it would be the parents delight to choose what kind of school that would best fill THEIR idea of what they would like for THEIR child’s education. You would not need to worry that a child would not be taught correctly because the parents would be making their decision on a wide range of things and I am positive that academics would be top priority on their lists. We need to start trusting the parents that they indeed CARE for their children and want THEY what’s best for them. Instead of accusing them of not caring because they aren’t funding a public school program.
As far as a parent’s fears of being exclusive… it would be to the schools advantage to be more inclusive. They would get more money that way. As far as exclusiveness would go into a religious school, it should be made up front that these practices are what the school indorses and the child is expected to follow the rules according to the school’s beliefs. With behavior problems, as I have said before, stem from many different reasons. Some may be because of boredom (school’s too easy). Other’s are because they just aren’t getting it and the behavior masks that fact. Then there are a load of other reasons. I think, here again, that schools would want to accommodate all children ($) so therefore they would have programs for them. There may even be a whole school for your child’s special needs… whatever they are. They can have a whole classroom or school filled with kids just like them. Someone they can relate to and be best friends with and a staff who understands them and can help them achieve their very best! This is not about isolating kids, this is about putting them in a settling that they can achieve success and feel great about themselves! Not in a setting that makes them feel odd. Let’s face it folks… some parents don’t teach their child to RESPECT all people (if they are different or don’t believe the same things).
THE BIG POINT IS: I would think that you would see a much better education for your son’s and daughter’s because they would be competing for your $ that your child would represent. I think we can truly find out how much our mighty dollar can really stretch if the money followed the child!
Now… I read the comment about where would the money come from if the money went to private education instead of public because the money is being subsidized by the parents. It is true that the public schools get less if my daughter’s go to a private school or home school. But the key word there is LESS. They still get my money regardless if my daughter’s go to public school or not! Any tax payer is paying for your son or daughter to go to school whether the have children or not. THAT is the great misconception.
I would like to ask a question. Are you saying that if all the home schooled and private schooled children would go back to public school… there numbers so large that the government couldn’t pay it? Let me ask another question. If the public schools were doing the job that those parents felt they should be doing, then why would they feel a need to private/home school?
I sometimes get the feeling that people don’t embrace this idea of the money following the student because of FEAR. Fear of something different, fear because of what government education is telling us, and the fear that the education they get won’t be what is needed for their lives. For some, they may fear for their jobs… but if you’re a good teacher… you will get the job and probably get more money too because schools will hire the best for their schools if they want to get the students. I think I talked about all of the fears at one time or another in this long post except one… something different. I can’t help you with that one. Change is sometime necessary in order to get something better. Change is hard sometimes, and sometimes easy.
I want to share a personal story with you. I never wanted to home school! I don’t want to turn this into a campaign for home schooling. So I’ll try to get to the point, it was hard (it is hard). But the benefits from it are wonderful and it was worth the effort and inconvenience. Your children are worth the effort and the inconvenience. We need to have what’s best for them. IT IS YOUR CHOICE WHAT THAT IS! Public, Private, or Home schooled. It is fair to have all children educated with the same resources ($) that someone in public school has. It is also fair for those who would like to be in private school (the definition now), have that option if they want. If there would be vouchers, all schools would be private.
Are you saying that if all the home schooled and private schooled children would go back to public school… there numbers so large that the government couldn’t pay it?
Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. The existence of a child does not immediately translate into a cost to the school, the district or the state. It’s only when that student is enrolled.
In California, courtesy of anti-tax morons who’ve decimated the ability of local government to raise money, the bulk of government revenue to schools comes from the state. There’s a per-student amount that’s given to the school district for each day of attendence by students. When we last had a voucher proposition in California, I did some very simple calculations: I looked at the number of private school students in the district where I lived. I multiplied that by the proposed voucher amount. I compared that with the current state stipend to the district. I forget the exact numbers, but it would have required a 50-70% increase in that State education funding. Not all areas will have the same kind of numbers, but it’s a very large amount of money and no one has ever explained where the money is coming from.
I would love to see those numbers. Please provide them.
I don’t have anything resembling hard numbers any more, but a quick search turned up the following:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/section1/table.asp?tableID=225
This only gives regionaly numbers and I suspect that my sample was a bit unrepresentative given what I’m seeing here, but even so, the increase in funding necessary is not trivial. I would guess that the percentages for California are going to be more closely tracked by the “Northeast” number than the “West” number as the vast expanses of the non-coastal west don’t easily support large numbers of private schools.
(A bit more googling shows that state-wide we had about 10% of California’s population in private school in 2000-2001.). But even if we go with the lowest numbers, there’s still a sizable subsidy to education that comes into play with the private school students.
Thanks for the link and info. I’ll do some research on it.