6. WHAT POLICY OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE? HOW DO WE VIEW THESE OPTIONS? What should our Nebraska public policy be? We have three choices: (1) Do nothing. Leave all State regulation exactly as it is now (and thus have the ultimate resolution of the issue decided by courts). attending them (2) Exempt Christian schools and children from all State regulation of any kind. (3) Change in some way the manner in which the State now regulates private schools (church-related, non-sectarian or both). In a perfect world, we would not have to choose among these three alternatives. The correct one would be easy to determine and satisfactory to all. But in our imperfect, and thereby much more interesting and challenging, world we often must make unclear and difficult choices. Although making these choices is necessary for society to function, the results can never be satisfactory to everyone. But we should not let this upset us. In a society which respects the opinions of all, it is inevitable that we frequently will have strong disagreements on policy questions. This inevitability means that we must (a) understand and respect the process of public resolution of our differences, and (b) accept the compromise settlements which any democratic and pluralistic society must have if that society is to survive. With this in mind let us look at each of these three alternatives: (1) Do nothing. Leave all State regulation exactly as it is now (and thus have the ultimate resolution of the issue decided by courts). This assumes that all present Nebraska laws, regulations and procedures with regard to church-related schools are completely proper in their present form and warrant no changes of any kind. It also assumes that all positions advanced by the supporters of Christian schools are without merit and, therefore, no adjustments are necessary to meet any of their concerns. Although this alternative has the obvious advantage of simplicity (we need not inflict upon ourselves the difficult task of examining and modifying any of our present practices), we do not consider it a viable option. We believe that some of the concerns of Christian school supporters have validity. From this we conclude that modifications in present Nebraska procedures are both necessary and desirable. (2) Exempt Christian schools and children attending them from all State regulation of any kind. This would meet all complaints of Christian school supporters. It also would result in the State declining to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the education of children in Christian schools. In our judgment, the State clearly cannot so abdicate its responsibility for the education of a single Nebraska child. Both the constitution itself and sound public policy place upon the State a profound duty to assure that its youth receive effective education for citizenship. The exact limits of the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion as related to education are not clear. However, no reasonable interpretation of these limits would. eliminate all interest of the State in the education of children in private church-related schools. (3) Change in some way the manner in which the State now regulates private schools (church-related, non-sectarian or both). Doing this represents a compromise between alternatives (1) and (2) above. It thereby suffers from the liability of not being acceptable to supporters of either alternative. It requires that supporters of both alternatives recognize some degree of validity to the position of the other. This is never easy to do, particularly when convictions are strongly held and emotions run high. In such circumstances it is extremely difficult to stand back and look anew at a situation with a significant degree of respect for strongly opposed convictions. We should heed the advice of F. Scott Fitzgerald, who said: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Difficult as all this may be, it nonetheless is our conclusion that some resolution of this Christian school issue should be sought within the parameters of this alternative number (3). Throughout the country today there is a growing body of opinion which suggests that all states, including Nebraska, should increase, rather than decrease or leave alone, state standards for public and private education. This body of opinion comes from present national disenchantment with many aspects of our nation's education system. "Why can't Johnny read?" is a frequent expression which summarizes the frustrations many people feel about education today. And so perhaps the State of Nebraska ought to be seeking more, not less, regulation of schools in order to upgrade educational standards and thereby increase the quality of education of Nebraska children. If done in a thoughtful and knowledgeable manner this may be sound policy. We think it is. Certainly any reasonable efforts to increase the effectiveness of our educational system should be encouraged. Constructive and well thought out proposals for improving education in Nebraska are contained in the outstanding September 30, 1983 report of Governor Kerrey's Task Force on Excellence in Education in Nebraska Schools. This perceptive report should be required reading for all Nebraska citizens. However, with specific reference to Christian schools, we believe that any strengthening of standards must be accomplished in a manner which properly takes into account (a) the religious convictions and rights of parents who chose to have their children educated in Christian schools, and (b) the children themselves. We conclude that no one involved in this controversy has a monopoly on wisdom. There are legitimate conflicting views held by people in good faith. Nor is there any evidence that any one involved is acting in bad faith. Quite the contrary. What we have here is a dispute which has triggered intense and indeed quite heated loyalties from a wide range of sincerely held convictions. Such a situation is not intrinsically wrong. It may be the inevitable result of a functioning pluralistic society where everyone is entitled to hold and to express his or her individual personal views. It is the sort of thing a free society encourages. And well that it should. The problem is simply that, in expressing these diverse views, all of us must at some point recognize that we can't have it all our own way. In every aspect of the common life there must be some sense of shared responsibility. And so we conclude that Nebraska Christian school issue policy should be addressed on the basis of two premises: (1) Some modification of the present Nebraska system for regulating Christian schools is appropriate. (2) The parents of children attending Christian schools must be willing to demonstrate to the state satisfactory educational achievement by their children. In making the specific recommendations which follow our panel does not presume to have all, or even any, of the answers. We address the matter of resolution of this issue very humbly. We will consider our efforts worthwhile if we can help in any way to provoke a thoughtful, constructive, unemotional, intelligent and wise discussion of the subject. Reasonable people will disagree as to the exact means necessary to accommodate the conflicting interests involved. The important element is a sincere recognition that there are genuine conflicting church-state concerns here which require some accommodation. The resolution of this controversy calls for some old-fashioned good sense, both common and horse. We hope that some of this good sense appears in our recommendations. In any event, Nebraskans have a tradition of demonstrating concern for one another, wisdom and practical judgment. For this reason we are confident that Nebraskans will resolve this in a sensible and fair manner. 7. WHAT SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS DO WE MAKE? 1. The State clearly has an obligation to establish reasonable and effective educational standards and to exercise an appropriate degree of control over all educational efforts, both public and private. To do anything less would be an irresponsible abdication by the State of its duty to the children of today and to future generations of Nebraskans. And so the only issue here is that of defining these "reasonable and effective" standards as applied to church-related private schools. The basic Nebraska educational goal of quality education for all children should not change. The only change needed is that certain techniques designed to accomplish this goal should be modified to accommodate legitimate (and in some instances constitutionally protected) religious liberties. 2. The First Amendment right to the "free exercise of religion", like our other constitutional rights, is not absolute. It must respect and adjust to other constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, Nebraska educational policy can and must continue to be interested in all education, including that which is church-related. Church members properly can demand that this State educational policy interfere with their religious convictions as little as possible. But they must recognize the legitimacy of the State's interest in the education of their children and accept some regulations designed to promote this State interest. In a similar manner, the State must recognize the legitimacy of sincerely held religious convictions and design its procedures so as to impinge as little as reasonably possible upon them. 3. Nebraska laws and regulations contain detailed requirements for school curriculum content, teacher certification, mandatory attendance, safety rules and related items such as physical facilities and instructional equipment and materials. For church-related private schools Nebraska policy should be modified to provide for the following exemption procedure: (a) If all parents of children attending such a school so elect, testing of the children shall be acceptable as an alternative to curriculum, teacher certification and related ites requirements for the school. The tests should be of a standarized nature. They must be nationally recognized by the State Department of Education and educators generally as proper indicators of student progress. They should be administered annually by the County Superintendents. If the average test scores in each content area and at each grade level of all students enrolled in a school are at least equal to such average test scores of students on the same or comparable tests in Nebraska public schools (or, if scores are not available for Nebraska public school students, then the nation as a whole), the school attended by these students need not meet the State curriculum, teacher certification and related items requirements. (b) Parents who elect this alternative shall make a written representation to the State that (1) their religious beliefs dictate this choice, (2) they consent to a testing procedure for their children, and (3) they will supply regularly to the State evidence that their children are (a) meeting State mandatory attendance requirements and (b) receiving a structured program of education which satisfactorily covers all basic areas of study included in State curriculum standards and is conducted with physical facilities and instructional equipment and materials comparable to State standards. If the parents (1) fail to comply with these procedures (or their representations to the State are inaccurate), or (2) their children test below the prescribed averages, then their children will be considered to be in violation of State mandatory school attendance requirements. (c) Health, safety and fire regulations for church-related private schools shall remain as they are. dure? (a) What is the result of this exemption proceA church-related private school, for reasons only of the, religious conscience of the parents of the children attending it, |