Bennett to Help Church Schools Fight Aid Ban

Education Secretary William J. Bennett, a harsh critic of the Supreme Court’s recent ban on certain types of public aid to parochial schools, offered Thursday to help school districts delay implementation of the court ruling.

In letters to all state school agencies, Bennett said that his department will “support local and state agencies in litigation” if they “have good grounds for requesting necessary delays in implementing the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Bennett’s letter is part of a package sent to the districts that includes 23 questions and answers on the court ruling--including apparent loopholes in the ban.

On July 1, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that public school teachers may not teach disadvantaged students on the premises of religious schools, reasoning that students might infer that such aid meant the government supports religion.

‘Beguiled Judges’

Bennett reacted vehemently, charging earlier this month that “aggressive plaintiffs and beguiled judges” have turned the Constitution into “the instrument for nothing less than a kind of ghettoizing of religion.” The secretary called American values and those of the Judeo-Christian tradition “flesh of the flesh, blood of the blood.”

In releasing his two-page letter Thursday, Bennett said that the court decision added “greater urgency” to the need for an educational voucher system for parents, and Education Department officials said that voucher legislation will be sent to Congress next month.

The legislation would give parents “chits,” allowing them to choose schools, public or private, for their children. Federal funds would then be allocated to schools on the basis of how many “chits” each school collects.

In writing to the school officials, Bennett reminded them of his opposition to the Supreme Court decision and said, “I sympathize fully with the problems and confusion” it caused.

Indeed, after the decision, a number of state officials expressed dismay, saying that immediate compliance would deprive needy students of education. Nationwide, the ban could affect 183,000 poor parochial school students who share part of the department’s $3.2-billion budget for teaching disadvantaged students.

Several states, including California, are urging a stay of the Supreme Court decision until next year, but no stay has been granted. When asked what kind of legal assistance the Education Department would provide, spokesman Marie Robinson said that it “depends on the facts of individual cases and will be determined on a case-by-case basis.”

The situation is complicated by the fact that school districts are required by the federal government to provide services to disadvantaged students in private schools that are equal to those provided to public school students--or risk losing their federal funding for such programs. This partly accounts for the fact that public school officials are eager to keep serving the private school students.

Gail ImObersteg, director of the federal liaison office for the California Education Department, said that 24,467 private school students in California receive public instruction, most on parochial school premises. “We need more time” to comply with the decision, she said.

Advice to States

Meanwhile, in his correspondence, Bennett offered the state officials ways to continue teaching private school students. In one instance, he noted that the Supreme Court decision permits those students to receive public instruction on premises other than the religious schools--including in public school buildings.

Bennett said also that the federal programs for the disadvantaged may pay rental and transportation costs for the private school students who go to classes outside the religious schools. He added that private school students could take public instructional materials into private schools.

However, ImObersteg said that such solutions, including setting up temporary classrooms, would mean “having to cope with” a maze of local building and health ordinances.

Moreover, she said, the extra costs for these changes leave less money for programs serving the disadvantaged--both private and public.