Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains information pertaining to the federal aid to parochial schools.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1534501
label
1975/04/28 - Herman Zerfas and Ivan Zylstra
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1534501
sourceUrl
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
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
Church schools
Federal aid
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5f9507314a71ed0c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 44, folder "1975/04/28 - Herman Zerfas and
Ivan Zylstra" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 44 of the James M. Cannon Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET
DATE: April 26, 1975
JMC action required by:
TO:
JIM CANNON
VIA:
DICK DUNHAM
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
ROGER SEMERAD
RMS
SUBJECT:
Presidential Meeting
April 28, 1975. 12:45 p.m. The Oval Office
COMMENTS:
This is due by 4 o'clock o' this afternoon.
DATE:
RETURN TO:
Material has been:
Signed and forwarded
Changed and signed (copy attached)
Returned per our conversation
Noted
Jim Cannon
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1975
MEETING WITH MSGR. HERMAN H. ZERFAS
AND IVAN E. ZYLSTRA
Monday, April 28, 1975
12:45 p.m. (15 minutes)
The Oval Office
From: Jim Cannon
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss Federal aid to parochial schools.
II.
BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A.
Background: There are 17,000 private elementary
and secondary schools in the nation enrolling
about 5,300,000 students. This means that 1 in
10 students are in private schools. Over 90
percent are in church-related schools with a
vast majority enrolled in Roman Catholic
schools.
Private elementary and secondary schools cannot
receive direct government aid under current
rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Some direct
aid to parents has been denied. Certain benefits
to children are allowed.
Most of the U.S. Supreme Court's actions were
in State aid cases. In 1947, it upheld a New
Jersey law which reimbursed public and private
school parents for bus transportation costs.
In 1968, it upheld a New York Law which allowed
the loan of textbooks to public and private
school children.
2
In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against
direct aid to church-related elementary and
secondary schools but allowed the aid at the
higher education level. However, the Court
stated that the contributions of private
schools have been enormous but that the idea of
direct government aid to church-related insti-
tutions has always been rejected. It reaffirmed
its position that bus transportation, textbooks
loaned to children, school lunches, and public
health services did not offend the First
Amendment.
The high court specifically stated it was not
ruling on the constitutionality of tax credits
in the 1973 Nyquist decision, but doubt has
been raised. Private school lawyers believe
tax credits will pass muster. There are bills
presently before this Congress. The April 30,
1973, Administration tax proposal is still
before the House but no action has been taken
since the 1973 N.Y. tax relief decision.
B.
Participants:
Msgr. Herman H. Zerfas, Superintendent of
Education, Diocese of Grand Rapids.
Ivan E. Zylstra, Administrator, School
and Governmental Relations, National Union
of Christian Schools, Grand Rapids.
Staff: Jim Cannon
C.
Press Plan: To be announced. David Hume
Kennerly photo only.
III. TALKING POINTS
1.
I favor tax credits for private school parents
to help them with growing tuition costs.
There is, however, question of constitutionality
of tax credits in light of the 1973 New York
decision.
Your
14737
3
A recent Administration review of the tax
credit mechanism has shown proposals to be
weak on cost-benefits tradeoff between loss
of revenues and benefits to student recipients.
It is theoretically possible that alternative
plans could be more favorable. However, the
essential regressive character of the scheme
has made it difficult to formulate a plan
which can overcome previous objections.
2.
Regarding long-term, low interest loans to
private schools for capital improvements,
this is a possible area of legislation. At
present, government loans are available under
the National Defense Education Act for instruc-
tional equipment and to do minor remodeling.
That law expires in June of this year, but
schools will be eligible for the loan of
equipment under the new education law (PL 93-
380) beginning July 1, 1975.
3.
The National Institute of Education is funding
a voucher demonstration project in California.
The Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare is also going ahead with a planning
grant for vouchers in New Hampshire and
Connecticut. Vouchers can be a costly and
controversial program. Nevertheless, we feel
it is important to support some of this effort
even in this time of stringent budgets and
concern about inflation. We will evaluate
the effectiveness of these experimental programs
carefully.
4.
I will continue to speak out for private schools
and support your efforts all that I. can. I look
to you for some guidance in that area. Perhaps
we can help with a national dialogue on the
importance of preserving our private schools.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date April 26, 1975
TO: JIM CANNON
FROM: ROGER SEMERAD
X
FYI
For appropriate action
COMMENTS
Attached for additional background.
PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE
October 9, 1974 -- Rose Garden
FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION
Q. Mr. President, on another question other than the
economy, on a subject you haven't talked about before I
don't believe, what is the Federal role in public education
as you see it? And I have a follow-up.
THE PRESIDENT. The role of the Federal Govern-
ment
Q. How little?
THE
PRESIDENT.
in the field of education is about
what we are currently doing with the Federal aid to
education legislation for primary and elementary schools.
And I just signed the new education act. It was a step
in the direction of consolidating some 35 categorical grant
programs into six or seven. I think this is approximately
the role of the Federal Government in primary and
secondary education.
In higher education, if my recollection is correct, I
voted for the existing higher education act. Therefore, I
feel that it fundamentally is what the Federal Govern-
ment should do in this area.
Q. Specifically, what are your views on Federal aid to
private and parochial schools?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I have personally expressed,
over a long period of time, that I think a tax credit pro-
posal is a good proposal. The Supreme Court, un-
fortunately a year or so ago, in effect, declared such a
program-I think it was in the Pennsylvania case-as
unconstitutional. I think that is regrettable because com-
petition in education, between private and public, is good
for the student. There is no reason why there should be
a monopoly in education just on the public side. And
private education has contributed over a long period of
time at the primary, secondary, and graduate levels sig-
nificantly to a better educated America. And I would
hope that we could find some Constitutional way in
which to help private schools.
October 8, 1974
MEMORANDUM TO: JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
ROGER D. SEMERAD
SUBJECT:
TUITION TAX CREDIT.
In response to the President's inquiry, this brief outlines the problems
and history of debate regarding tax credit proposals.
The concept of allowing deductions or forgiveness in Federal income taxes
on educational costs for students and their parents has been discussed
actively since at least 1964. Senator Ribicoff has been the most frequent
spokesman for this type of plan. In 1964, a plan to allow such a deduction
was under active discussion in the Congress and gaining major support.
Budget analysis at that time raised two amjor obstacles: (1) tax forgiveness
plans are highly regressive, because the amount of benefit rises directly
with tax liability, a function of income. Those who need help most get
almost no benefit from tax forgiveness. (2) Losses on the Federal revenue
side offset by several orders of magnitude the alternative cost of pro
viding grants and loans to the same group of students.
As a result of this analysis, the Johnson Administration pushed very hard
for an alternative to the Ribicoff proposal which resulted in the Federal
Guaranteed Student Loan program, enacted in 1965. Various tax forgiveness
plans have been discussed for the last ten years. To date, Administrations
of both parties have opposed them for the two reasons cited above.
The U. S. Office of Education is currently reviewing staff office records to
see if any concise summary or more recent analysis is available. While
the previous analysis has shown proposals to be walk on cost-benefits tradeoff
between loss of revenues and benefits to student recipients, it is theoretically
possible that alternative plans could be more favorable. However, the essential
regressive character of the scheme has made it difficult to formulate a plan
which can overcome previous objections.
2
A related issue, likely to be surfaced by discussion of the above topic,
is the relief of costs of private elementary and secondary school costs.
The greatest impact here is the church related, mostly Catholic schools.
This reopens traditional Church-State issues of government support for
education.
If additional information is required please let me know.
Present, and 12.45
4/28/75
dylatem - hopel - could all
for juduel sever
a study u to
What mw of
Am and wow
m approvant of
met schools
- Cour Jutri m
without & do a
study To now
When are are -
Hill Common 1 socrection
new my Feed arro
august how hith
clean the not laws
Donotor Count to
talu responsibily
Zerfan Dr Jrl Bau er what 1
our but we're
ever deart WITH
few . burn on purple -
and to releas
P tack ur commth
but deeds not
clouide a convention
zept Ny gert drein
stoper are acdits
dear
teyns : as & what - wi
dept of electric
ant comm for
um - public nhools
appeal prom different
because person we lear
tu ww look abolas
M P aroundent Went To
and unt Buy
wl tur request on waller
approved Autus if
dept.
Sylstm - one problem me
free 5 warms
percepts That an
then for non - Junhi
Whole
are good pay van -
power us us
Iso. 35 % in Gaw
Mopud in won. public schools
?
Pr Oclus about Defract
Zeafar- - cowern Re Cout
& what it can I.
we correcued M Cout
+ permissivence 1
decome and
1
univality That follow
that
& Gum them copie if
Cimi mach -
n donestir tran quillity"
Dirt of 3
On Cout
P - HE - to Get to
Zefan= = HE hum
What benefits an
somble to now- public
Achools under evisting states
New artas -
Kox deductions
2 Tox credits
3 Voucher
4 Him missurents for the secure
review the wan public account