Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1534501",
    "label": "1975/04/28 - Herman Zerfas and Ivan Zylstra",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534501"
}

{
    "id": "1534501",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534501",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1975/04/28 - Herman Zerfas and Ivan Zylstra",
    "description": "This file contains information pertaining to the federal aid to parochial schools.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534501",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Church schools",
        "Federal aid"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534501.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534501.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534501.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534501",
    "naId": 1534501,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-04-30",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534501.pdf",
    "mediaId": "5f9507314a71ed0c",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 44, folder \"1975/04/28 - Herman Zerfas and\nIvan Zylstra\" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 44 of the James M. Cannon Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nDOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET\nDATE: April 26, 1975\nJMC action required by:\nTO:\nJIM CANNON\nVIA:\nDICK DUNHAM\nJIM CAVANAUGH\nFROM:\nROGER SEMERAD\nRMS\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Meeting\nApril 28, 1975. 12:45 p.m. The Oval Office\nCOMMENTS:\nThis is due by 4 o'clock o' this afternoon.\nDATE:\nRETURN TO:\nMaterial has been:\nSigned and forwarded\nChanged and signed (copy attached)\nReturned per our conversation\nNoted\nJim Cannon\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1975\nMEETING WITH MSGR. HERMAN H. ZERFAS\nAND IVAN E. ZYLSTRA\nMonday, April 28, 1975\n12:45 p.m. (15 minutes)\nThe Oval Office\nFrom: Jim Cannon\nI.\nPURPOSE\nTo discuss Federal aid to parochial schools.\nII.\nBACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN\nA.\nBackground: There are 17,000 private elementary\nand secondary schools in the nation enrolling\nabout 5,300,000 students. This means that 1 in\n10 students are in private schools. Over 90\npercent are in church-related schools with a\nvast majority enrolled in Roman Catholic\nschools.\nPrivate elementary and secondary schools cannot\nreceive direct government aid under current\nrulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Some direct\naid to parents has been denied. Certain benefits\nto children are allowed.\nMost of the U.S. Supreme Court's actions were\nin State aid cases. In 1947, it upheld a New\nJersey law which reimbursed public and private\nschool parents for bus transportation costs.\nIn 1968, it upheld a New York Law which allowed\nthe loan of textbooks to public and private\nschool children.\n2\nIn 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against\ndirect aid to church-related elementary and\nsecondary schools but allowed the aid at the\nhigher education level. However, the Court\nstated that the contributions of private\nschools have been enormous but that the idea of\ndirect government aid to church-related insti-\ntutions has always been rejected. It reaffirmed\nits position that bus transportation, textbooks\nloaned to children, school lunches, and public\nhealth services did not offend the First\nAmendment.\nThe high court specifically stated it was not\nruling on the constitutionality of tax credits\nin the 1973 Nyquist decision, but doubt has\nbeen raised. Private school lawyers believe\ntax credits will pass muster. There are bills\npresently before this Congress. The April 30,\n1973, Administration tax proposal is still\nbefore the House but no action has been taken\nsince the 1973 N.Y. tax relief decision.\nB.\nParticipants:\nMsgr. Herman H. Zerfas, Superintendent of\nEducation, Diocese of Grand Rapids.\nIvan E. Zylstra, Administrator, School\nand Governmental Relations, National Union\nof Christian Schools, Grand Rapids.\nStaff: Jim Cannon\nC.\nPress Plan: To be announced. David Hume\nKennerly photo only.\nIII. TALKING POINTS\n1.\nI favor tax credits for private school parents\nto help them with growing tuition costs.\nThere is, however, question of constitutionality\nof tax credits in light of the 1973 New York\ndecision.\nYour\n14737\n3\nA recent Administration review of the tax\ncredit mechanism has shown proposals to be\nweak on cost-benefits tradeoff between loss\nof revenues and benefits to student recipients.\nIt is theoretically possible that alternative\nplans could be more favorable. However, the\nessential regressive character of the scheme\nhas made it difficult to formulate a plan\nwhich can overcome previous objections.\n2.\nRegarding long-term, low interest loans to\nprivate schools for capital improvements,\nthis is a possible area of legislation. At\npresent, government loans are available under\nthe National Defense Education Act for instruc-\ntional equipment and to do minor remodeling.\nThat law expires in June of this year, but\nschools will be eligible for the loan of\nequipment under the new education law (PL 93-\n380) beginning July 1, 1975.\n3.\nThe National Institute of Education is funding\na voucher demonstration project in California.\nThe Department of Health, Education, and\nWelfare is also going ahead with a planning\ngrant for vouchers in New Hampshire and\nConnecticut. Vouchers can be a costly and\ncontroversial program. Nevertheless, we feel\nit is important to support some of this effort\neven in this time of stringent budgets and\nconcern about inflation. We will evaluate\nthe effectiveness of these experimental programs\ncarefully.\n4.\nI will continue to speak out for private schools\nand support your efforts all that I. can. I look\nto you for some guidance in that area. Perhaps\nwe can help with a national dialogue on the\nimportance of preserving our private schools.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDate April 26, 1975\nTO: JIM CANNON\nFROM: ROGER SEMERAD\nX\nFYI\nFor appropriate action\nCOMMENTS\nAttached for additional background.\nPRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE\nOctober 9, 1974 -- Rose Garden\nFEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION\nQ. Mr. President, on another question other than the\neconomy, on a subject you haven't talked about before I\ndon't believe, what is the Federal role in public education\nas you see it? And I have a follow-up.\nTHE PRESIDENT. The role of the Federal Govern-\nment\nQ. How little?\nTHE\nPRESIDENT.\nin the field of education is about\nwhat we are currently doing with the Federal aid to\neducation legislation for primary and elementary schools.\nAnd I just signed the new education act. It was a step\nin the direction of consolidating some 35 categorical grant\nprograms into six or seven. I think this is approximately\nthe role of the Federal Government in primary and\nsecondary education.\nIn higher education, if my recollection is correct, I\nvoted for the existing higher education act. Therefore, I\nfeel that it fundamentally is what the Federal Govern-\nment should do in this area.\nQ. Specifically, what are your views on Federal aid to\nprivate and parochial schools?\nTHE PRESIDENT. Well, I have personally expressed,\nover a long period of time, that I think a tax credit pro-\nposal is a good proposal. The Supreme Court, un-\nfortunately a year or so ago, in effect, declared such a\nprogram-I think it was in the Pennsylvania case-as\nunconstitutional. I think that is regrettable because com-\npetition in education, between private and public, is good\nfor the student. There is no reason why there should be\na monopoly in education just on the public side. And\nprivate education has contributed over a long period of\ntime at the primary, secondary, and graduate levels sig-\nnificantly to a better educated America. And I would\nhope that we could find some Constitutional way in\nwhich to help private schools.\nOctober 8, 1974\nMEMORANDUM TO: JIM CAVANAUGH\nFROM:\nROGER D. SEMERAD\nSUBJECT:\nTUITION TAX CREDIT.\nIn response to the President's inquiry, this brief outlines the problems\nand history of debate regarding tax credit proposals.\nThe concept of allowing deductions or forgiveness in Federal income taxes\non educational costs for students and their parents has been discussed\nactively since at least 1964. Senator Ribicoff has been the most frequent\nspokesman for this type of plan. In 1964, a plan to allow such a deduction\nwas under active discussion in the Congress and gaining major support.\nBudget analysis at that time raised two amjor obstacles: (1) tax forgiveness\nplans are highly regressive, because the amount of benefit rises directly\nwith tax liability, a function of income. Those who need help most get\nalmost no benefit from tax forgiveness. (2) Losses on the Federal revenue\nside offset by several orders of magnitude the alternative cost of pro\nviding grants and loans to the same group of students.\nAs a result of this analysis, the Johnson Administration pushed very hard\nfor an alternative to the Ribicoff proposal which resulted in the Federal\nGuaranteed Student Loan program, enacted in 1965. Various tax forgiveness\nplans have been discussed for the last ten years. To date, Administrations\nof both parties have opposed them for the two reasons cited above.\nThe U. S. Office of Education is currently reviewing staff office records to\nsee if any concise summary or more recent analysis is available. While\nthe previous analysis has shown proposals to be walk on cost-benefits tradeoff\nbetween loss of revenues and benefits to student recipients, it is theoretically\npossible that alternative plans could be more favorable. However, the essential\nregressive character of the scheme has made it difficult to formulate a plan\nwhich can overcome previous objections.\n2\nA related issue, likely to be surfaced by discussion of the above topic,\nis the relief of costs of private elementary and secondary school costs.\nThe greatest impact here is the church related, mostly Catholic schools.\nThis reopens traditional Church-State issues of government support for\neducation.\nIf additional information is required please let me know.\nPresent, and 12.45\n4/28/75\ndylatem - hopel - could all\nfor juduel sever\na study u to\nWhat mw of\nAm and wow\nm approvant of\nmet schools\n- Cour Jutri m\nwithout & do a\nstudy To now\nWhen are are -\nHill Common 1 socrection\nnew my Feed arro\naugust how hith\nclean the not laws\nDonotor Count to\ntalu responsibily\nZerfan Dr Jrl Bau er what 1\nour but we're\never deart WITH\nfew . burn on purple -\nand to releas\nP tack ur commth\nbut deeds not\nclouide a convention\nzept Ny gert drein\nstoper are acdits\ndear\nteyns : as & what - wi\ndept of electric\nant comm for\num - public nhools\nappeal prom different\nbecause person we lear\ntu ww look abolas\nM P aroundent Went To\nand unt Buy\nwl tur request on waller\napproved Autus if\ndept.\nSylstm - one problem me\nfree 5 warms\npercepts That an\nthen for non - Junhi\nWhole\nare good pay van -\npower us us\nIso. 35 % in Gaw\nMopud in won. public schools\n?\nPr Oclus about Defract\nZeafar- - cowern Re Cout\n& what it can I.\nwe correcued M Cout\n+ permissivence 1\ndecome and\n1\nunivality That follow\nthat\n& Gum them copie if\nCimi mach -\nn donestir tran quillity\"\nDirt of 3\nOn Cout\nP - HE - to Get to\nZefan= = HE hum\nWhat benefits an\nsomble to now- public\nAchools under evisting states\nNew artas -\nKox deductions\n2 Tox credits\n3 Voucher\n4 Him missurents for the secure\nreview the wan public account"
}