Evening star., 1961-03-23
LETTERS TO THE STAR
Another Round of Debate on School Aid

AS the wife Of q teacher
and the mother Of three chill
dren who are entirely sup
ported by said teachers in
come, I am keenly opposed
to further Federal financing
of our public schools. I am
against Federal aid to educa-
ton because:
Localities are quick to "let
the Government take over"
Taxes, any taxes, are rarely
popular.
Money from the Federal
Government will be less wise
ly spent. When dollars are
no longer "ours" but "itS,"
budgets are less carefully
scrutinized, ingenuity relaxes.
Money alone is not the
answer. In my husbands
principals office is a shelf of
books turned in by students
who have left or been
dropped from school. It is a
brand-new school with a
good, well-trained faculty.
Money could not save these
pupils. Parental responsible
ity. love, discipline over the
years could have. My children
attend a suburban school
where plant and salaries are
pretty good. They face what
I believe is another handicap
"a curriculum which does
not demand their best.
Teacher salaries are still
not good enough. While my
husband is now making in
dollars what 10 years ago he
thought would give us the
financial security to educate
ourselves and our children,
pay our bills and plan for our
old age, we are paying prices
bid up by even higher civil
service and military pay
scales. Federal spending will
only increase the initiation
which has robbed us of buy
ing power.
Finally, there is much noise
on the New Frontier about
giving every man the self
respect to which he is en-
titled. But self respect is not
a better house or fancier
clothes, and it is not the
Federal Governments to give.
That you can give a man
self-respect by taking away
his self-reliance is q delusion
common to those who have
learned about poor people at
Harvard.
Teachers Wife.
On March 18th, Cardinal
Spellman stated, "I am still
opposed to any program Of
Federal aid that would Pc
nalize a multitude Of Amer
ica's children because their
parents choose to exercise
their constitutional rights to
educate them in accordance
with their beliefs"
! suggest that the state
ment be reworded to read,
"A multitude Of Americas
children are penalized be-
cause their parents choose to
exercise their constitutional
rights to educate them in ac-
cordance with their beliefs. +"
You win notice he said that
the children, not the parents,
will be penalized. This pun
ishment could only be In the
form Of inadequate educa-
tion. Cardinal Spellman
seems very quick to put the
blame for this inadequacy on
lack Of support by the tax
payers. He fails to mention
another solution. That is
leaving education to the pub
lie education system, and
furthering the cause Of their
belief in church.
There is no denying the
constitutional right to mix
church and education, but
let those who so choose, pay
their own bills. At the pres
ent time, taxpayers have q
voice in the spending of their
tax money when they elect
the members Of the school
board and attend school
meetings. What happens to
their constitutional rights If
their money goes to a private
school?
The basic problem lies in
the attempt to mix two as
poets Of our democracy that
cannot be mixed. They are
religious freedom and public
education. Religious freedom
allows each religious group
to worship together. It Is not
a freedom to use the money
of those outside the group to
further its interest. Our pub
lie education system is q
wonderful thing. We must
not let its Improvement be
impeded by the narrower in