Copyright 1994 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.  
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
April 26, 1994, TUESDAY, FIVE STAR Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 13B

LENGTH: 875 words

HEADLINE: PARENTS SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE IN SCHOOLS

COLUMN: COMMENTARY COLUMN

BYLINE: Mae Duggan

BODY:
While the New York case of Board of Education vs. Grumet is hailed as going "to the heart of the issue of separation of church and state," the actual situation and facts of the suit will not allow for a just resolution of the issue.

Why? Because the case involves the establishment of a public school district for one school for handicapped children, under a state statute passed in 1990, in the village of Kiryas Joel, N.Y., which is inhabited by deeply religious Hasidic Jews. Given the unique situation, the justices can fairly say that a public (government) school cannot be operated by a private, religious group to accommodate its religious needs.

News articles speculate that this case could invalidate the Lemon test for church-state cases, but the thinking is confused. The 1973 ruling in the case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman was aimed at preventing Catholic school children from receiving educational services. It is a "Catch- 22" type of test: The aid or accommodation must have a secular purpose and must neither aid nor inhibit religion.

Of course, anyone can see that this "test" is ridiculous. It is impossible that any educational program can "neither aid nor inhibit religion." Public (government) schools, which are totally non-religious or secular, do inhibit the religious beliefs and practices of the students and violate the rights of religious parents to choose the kind of God-centered education they require.

On the other hand, if the state, as New York did, authorizes a village controlled by a religious sect or church to operate a "public school," this situation must result in an encouragement or "aid" to religion. So the real test should be whether the government - whether state, local or federal - is neutral in the matter of the education of children.

At present, the system of government schools, which controls all education funds, constitutes a monopoly that coerces parents, whether religious or non-religious, to accept instruction from public teachers or to enroll their children in private or religious schools and thus surrender their fair share of the tax money public schools collect for all children.

In recent Supreme Court decisions involving handicapped children, the Zobrest case, concerning a deaf student, and the Carter case, involving an educationally handicapped student, the court ruled in favor of reimbursement to the parents for expenses incurred in removing their children from the inadequate public schools and paying tuition for them in private schools.

Herein lies the real solution to the puzzling separation of church-and-state issue as it affects education. Let the parents decide what is best for their own children, whether handicapped or not. It is a recognized human right that parents must be allowed this choice.

So instead of involving the public school, which is a government agency, the system must be changed to allow parents an education grant that is not in any way a government choice of either public or private education. Thus the state remains neutral. The education funds, which school-age children have a right to receive, constitute an entitlement, as does Social Security or any other welfare benefit.

The concept of the parents' choice tuition voucher is the solution to the church-state dilemma that has plagued this nation since the 1840s, when Catholic immigrants to America were confronted with the public school monopoly. Now all religious families are being denied their right to give their children a God-centered education.   It is time to reform the public school system, which was born in bigotry and preserved in prejudice. Let the government get out of the business of education and restore the family to its rightful role as the guardian of its own children's education.

A precedent for this solution is the fair and just decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, in 1925. The court ruled: "The fundamental theory of liberty under which all governments in this union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Could anything be clearer for the justices? This is the law of the land, yet parents are prevented from enjoying this right because the "wall of separation of church and state," erroneously interpreted, stands in their way.

Citizens for Educational Freedom calls on the Supreme Court to "tear down that wall!" just as President Ronald Reagan demanded that the communists tear down the cruel Berlin Wall. Since that barrier to freedom is down, could not we in America remove this phony "wall of separation" and free our families from government control of the schools?

The problem is not with religion, or with the family. It is the public (government) school system. Let our people go free. Let the dollar follow the scholar.

Give parents a choice. Give children a chance. Then see the end of this destructive controversy and a real peace and scholastic excellence in our communities.

LOAD-DATE: April 27, 1994