The Purpose(s) of Education, Public & Private

[Marie A. Failinger]

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Mark Rahdert wrote:

I agree that the division is imperfect--and that most schools arguably
receive some tax support, even small and indirect---and I would welcome
any better alternatives.  But we still need a way to talk about schools
that are tied to the political community, whatever other ties they also
have, and those that are not.  Otherwise, truly "public" schools that
happen not to be primarily supported by taxes are not challenged or
permitted to take their public place, government-supported schools are
touted as the only place where civic responsibility is learned, and the
difference between public and government is glossed over.  Some might
make a case that it
would be better for government-supported schools to be agnostic about
values (if indeed they could), but if they choose to or even must select
values, I would prefer that such values not be viewed as the only
available and valid public values, or even worse, that the values be
touted as "objective."

> Many "private" schools (in the sense
> that they are not owned and run by the government) conceive of a substantial
> portion of their educational mission in terms of "public" goals.  In other
> words, they mix public and private functions.  The Court's parochial school
> aid cases virtually all assume this to be the case; otherwise aid to
> parochial schools would fail to serve a secular purpose.  But once we have
> admitted the existence of hybrids, aren't we back in the same old soup?
>
>         Mark Rahdert
>         Temple University School of Law
>


Marie A. Failinger
Hamline University School of Law
mfailing at piper.hamline.edu