hh
S
\
STUDIES IN ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION MAKING
A Fundamental Goal:
Education for the People
of Illinois
Jane Galloway Buresh
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY
5/5
-JZ
e*.
A FUNDAMENTAL GOAL
A Fundamental Goal:
Education for the
People of Illinois
JANE GALLOWAY BURESH
Published for the
Institute of Government and Public Affairs
by the
University of Illinois Press
Urbana Chicago London
Special appreciation is expressed to
the Field Foundation of Illinois,
whose financial support has made
this series possible.
© x975 by The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
Manufactured in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Buresh, Jane Galloway, 1945-
A fundamental goal : education for the people
of Illinois.
(Studies in Illinois constitution making)
Originally presented as the author's thesis,
University of Chicago.
1. Educational law and legislation — Illinois.
2. Illinois — Constitutional law. I. Illinois.
University at Urbana-Champaign. Institute of Govern-
ment and Public Affairs. II. Title. III. Series.
KFI1590.B87 1974 344'-773'07 74-19064
ISBN 0-252-00457-4 (pbk.)
To Jack
Contents
Foreword ix
Preface xi
Introduction xv
I. The Education Committee : Composition and Procedure 3
II. Creating a State Board of Education 23
III. Formulating Educational Objectives 34
IV. Providing for Higher Education 48
V. Aid to Nonpublic Schools :
Caution in the Face of Controversy 54
VI. The Financing of Education :
Beginning to Face a Long-Range Problem 72
VII. The Education Article at First Reading 82
VIII. The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 109
IX. Conclusions and Implications 123
Index 1 3 1
Foreword
When the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention convened in De-
cember 1969, many educational and political observers thought the
question of state aid to private and parochial schools would be
among the most difficult questions to resolve; some anticipated it
would lead to a breakdown of the convention. Delegates campaigned
on both sides of the issue, newspapers editorialized, interest groups
took positions, and committee appointments in the convention were
sought with that one question in mind. Surprisingly, the issue was
resolved with little or no controversy. Both sides opted for the status
quo - — both sought to leave the constitutional language as it was
in the 1870 document and allow the contestants to settle their bat-
tle in the courts.
But education was not without controversy in the convention. As
Jane Buresh underscores in this volume, attention became focused
on the questions of the priority of education as a state function, and
the best means of carrying out that function. Neither issue received
significant attention prior to the convention, nor was it immediately
considered when the delegates were in the organization phase of
their task. However, once the Education Committee began its work,
and since the adjournment of the convention, the questions have
taken on a new dimension. The way in which the participants in
the Illinois political process address these two issues in the formative
post-convention years will have profound impact on Illinois educa-
tion for many years to come.
Ms. Buresh has analyzed the development of the legal and politi-
cal framework for Illinois education. She has also laid a solid foun-
IX
x A Fundamental Goal
dation for the continuing debate on the political questions related to
education in Illinois, such as the role of state government in financ-
ing education and the relationship of the new state board of edu-
cation to the established local boards.
A Fundamental Goal is the seventh volume in the series Studies
in Illinois Constitution Making. The series was initiated as a result
of a felt need for a thorough study of a state constitutional conven-
tion. Its primary aim is to recount — in breadth and detail — the
events, personalities, strategies, conflicts, and resolutions which went
into a new basic law acceptable to the voters of Illinois. Each book
in the series deals with a specific phase of the convention utilizing
an approach and method chosen by the author. Ms. Buresh, like
the other authors, has combined her skill and background with first-
hand observation of the convention and contact with the delegates.
Ms. Buresh served as an administrative assistant to the Education
Committee, and shared in much of the writing of the education
article.
Publication of Studies in Illinois Constitution Making has been
made possible by the generous support of the Field Foundation of
Illinois. The statements and views expressed in these books are solely
the responsibility of the authors.
Joseph P. Pisciotte
Series Editor
Samuel K. Gove
Institute Director
Preface
The subject of education, as it relates to the Illinois Constitution,
received very little attention from the press or from legal commenta-
tors either prior to or during the convention; relatively little time
was devoted to debate on educational issues. And yet, it may be that
the education article, of all the articles rewritten in 1970, will pro-
mote the most far-reaching changes — in financing, in scope, in the
very nature of education as we know it today.
I was privileged to serve as the administrative assistant to the
Education Committee at Illinois's Sixth Constitutional Convention.
Thus, I was being paid a salary while at the same time I was doing
research for a dissertation on the convention. What a happy situa-
tion for an impecunious graduate student ! ( Happier still because of
the people with whom I worked at the convention. ) My position as
administrative assistant facilitated my observation of all but the
earliest meetings of the committee, as well as the plenary sessions
where the education article was considered.
Much of the information contained in this study is based on inter-
views with the delegates. The majority of these interviews were in-
formal; I simply asked questions on specific issues. At other times,
particularly with non-Education Committee members, I conducted
interviews at length on the whole subject of education at the con-
vention. In April 1970, I gave the Education Committee members
a questionnaire which asked for their backgrounds, their answers to
specific questions (such as, Who were the influential witnesses and
lobbyists?), their positions on various educational issues prior to the
XI
xii A Fundamental Goal
convention, and an account of any changes in those positions after
the convention began.
Other sources I consulted were the transcripts of the plenary ses-
sions, member proposals, and the Education Committee minutes
and reports; position papers of witnesses; mail received by the dele-
gates; and records of previous constitutional conventions. After the
convention ended, I accumulated missing information through cor-
respondence with delegates, convention officials, and the Illinois
Historical Library. Statistical data were supplied by the Illinois
Education Association, the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction of Illinois, and the Board of Higher Education.
Acknowledgments are commonplace in a preface, but they are
not sufficient to express my gratitude to all those who made this
study possible. I wish to thank the delegates to the convention, most
particularly the members of the Education Committee. I hope the
following pages have adequately portrayed the dedication and the
abilities of these eleven men and women. They kindly made me
privy to information not usually accessible and thus permitted in-
sight into their motivations — a subject always difficult to explore.
Warm thanks also go to my special friends in the press corps cover-
ing the convention : Edie Herman of the Chicago Tribune, Charlie
Wheeler of the Chicago Sun-Times, Ed Gilbreth and John Camper
of the Chicago Daily News and Tony Abel of WCIA-TV in Cham-
paign. Conversations with them added to my knowledge of the con-
vention in general as well as to my enjoyment of the convention
experience.
Members of the faculty and staff of the Institute of Government
and Public Affairs of the University of Illinois could not have been
more helpful : Samuel K. Gove, director ; Ashley Nugent, technical
advisor; and Jean Baker and Florence Edmison, typists. Thanks are
due especially to Joseph Pisciotte, editor of this series, whose good
humor and incisive insights kept me from depression and error; to
Jane Clark, manuscript editor; and to the Field Foundation of Illi-
nois which made this series possible.
This study was originally written as a Ph.D. dissertation for the
University of Chicago. My greatest debt is to my dissertation com-
mittee: Philip B. Kurland, Donald A. Erickson, and especially my
chairman, Robert L. McCaul. I am also grateful for the assistance
Preface xiii
of Dr. Richard G. Browne and Samuel W. Witwer, who were kind
enough to read the manuscript before publication and to supple-
ment my story with their own knowledge of the writing of the edu-
cation article.
As administrative assistant to the Education Committee, I be-
came totally immersed in the problems and personalities of the
committee and the convention. I am sure that I was not a com-
pletely unbiased observer, and I am aware that my inclinations may
often be apparent. Any errors in interpretation are solely my own.
Introduction
The Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention was unique in Illinois
constitutional history in several respects, all of which contributed to
its success.
In the first place, no earlier convention had had the benefit of
such extensive preparation to facilitate its task. More than four years
before the convention formally opened in i g6g, the Illinois General
Assembly created the first of three successive constitution study com-
missions to engage in the crucial advance planning needed for the
convention's work. Out of the efforts of these commissions came two
very useful publications: George Braden and Rubin Cohn's The
Illinois Constitution: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis and
Thomas Kitsos and Joseph Pisciotte's A Guide to Illinois Constitu-
tional Revision: The ig6g Constitutional Convention, both pub-
lished by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the
University of Illinois.
Another volume which proved invaluable to the delegates was
prepared at the instigation of Governor Richard B. Ogilvie; it was
a compilation of research by various scholars on potential issues for
the convention and was called Con-Con: Issues for the Illinois Con-
stitutional Convention, edited by Samuel K. Gove and Victoria
Ranney and published by the University of Illinois Press. Various
independent organizations also prepared research and position pa-
pers dealing with constitutional issues, many of which — according
to observers at the convention — received extensive use by the
delegates.
In the second place there had been for more than fifty years'
xv
xvi A Fundamental Goal
concerted effort for constitutional revision. Every governor during
that period had advocated extensive constitutional change by con-
vention action or by separate amendment. These efforts, frequently
frustrated by circumstances, had helped generate an unusual degree
of public interest and support for the convention's work. Every
major public official of the state was on record in support of the con-
vention and all of them offered it their cordial assistance.
But the most unique feature of the Sixth Illinois Constitutional
Convention was the quality of its 1 1 6 delegates. Senator W. Russell
Arlington, addressing the convention on March 25, 1970, described
them in these words :
You are the most diverse and the best educated representative
body ever assembled in this state. You are younger and more urban
than any of the other five bodies that preceded you. Lawyers, edu-
cators, clergymen, government workers, business men, bankers,
farmers, housewives, civil rights leaders — you are an impressive
body.
From the outset, the delegates showed a deep commitment, a con-
siderable exuberance, and a sense of destiny that set them apart.
Their spirit was good from the start and their morale was lifted even
higher when, on March 20, 1970, their deliberations moved into the
beautifully restored, historic Old State Capitol.
This morale was steadily demonstrated by the pride the mem-
bers took in their task — and in each other. Ms. Buresh has noted,
with perception, the division of the Education Committee into
"Young Turks" and "Old Guard" ; but this factionalism, and even
the gamesmanship it engendered, in no way disturbed the essential
sense of unity among the members. They worked together, played
together, and generally respected each other. They spoke admiringly
of Catholic delegates who voted against any weakening of the pro-
hibition of aid to parochial schools, and of delegates from the Cook
County Democratic organization — even from the mayor's office —
who voted against proposals with clear organization sponsorship.
The delegates cherished their independence and the nonpartisan
character of their election, even though such nonpartisan choice
was, in some cases, more ostensible than real.
In these and other respects the convention was uniquely of high
merit. To one who has observed the Illinois General Assembly for
Introduction xvii
several decades, the qualitative superiority of the constitutional con-
vention over the Illinois legislature was impressive.
The Education Committee shared all these unique advantages.
The preplanning studies were most useful, especially the lengthy
chapter by Dr. Orville Alexander in Con-Con: Issues. The commit-
tee also benefited from extensive studies — especially those dealing
with the proposed state board of education — by the Illinois State
Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Congress of Parents and Teach-
ers (PTA), the Illinois Education Association, and the principal
state school officials. And surely, as Ms. Buresh's comments demon-
strate, the members of the Education Committee were themselves
of superior quality and dedication.
Thus it is not surprising that the Education Committee produced
a superior draft and that its recommendations were accepted by the
convention and the voters, with relatively minor change. Ms. Buresh
describes these successes and suggests something of their importance.
The committee's judgment in its retention of section 3, Public Funds
for Sectarian Purposes Forbidden, was a major factor in securing
voter approval of the entire document. Any change in this section
— whether it weakened or strengthened the section — would have
aroused serious emotional objection to the document, and might
have jeopardized its ratification (just as a clause dealing with school
prayer had helped defeat the proposed 1922 Illinois Constitution) .
The long and sometimes demoralizing task of defining educa-
tional objectives in section 1 , Goal — Free Schools, finally resulted
in a new emphasis on education. That section states one of the
broadest delineations of purpose contained in any state constitution.
Professional educators, in Illinois and other states, are delighted
with its scope and vision. Even with "the paramount" changed first
to "a paramount" then to "a fundamental" goal, the language is
impressive. And the final clause in the section, giving the state "the
primary responsibility for financing the system of public education,"
is something like reaching for the stars. Of course, as Ms. Buresh
points out, even the sponsors of these rather grandiose goals recog-
nized them to be merely "hortatory." They are still appropriate to
a constitution and worded in a way to generate pride.
But the Education Committee's chief task was to provide for a
new structure of state management of education through the crea-
xviii A Fundamental Goal
tion of a state board of education and the elimination of the popu-
larly-elected, partisan-tinged state superintendent of public instruc-
tion. For many citizens concerned with public education this was the
chief task of the convention itself. It was not easy. There was serious
opposition to taking from the voters the choice of the chief state
school officer. While civic groups argued for the short ballot, it is
worth noting that the convention did not find it possible to remove
from the elective process the secretary of state, the attorney general,
the state treasurer, or the comptroller (the former state auditor).
Thus only the Education Committee was able to remove a major
state office from the popular election method.
It is true that, in submitting section 2, State Board of Education
— Chief State Educational Officer, the Education Committee was
unable to agree on two crucial points: the scope of authority and
the manner of selection. Neither was the convention able to resolve
these differences. The result was that both controversies were passed
along for later legislative determination. While there are persons
who will, with some justification, call this a "cop-out," there are
also sound bases for contending that it is wise to leave the legislature
free to decide both issues, retaining full power to alter their choices
if that appears desirable. And this is wholly consistent with the re-
peated wishes of the constitutional "purists," who sought a short,
flexible document. Many delegates were genuinely committed to
this position, and to them section 2 represents work exceedingly well
done.
One must not neglect that real contribution the Education Com-
mittee, and the convention, made in deleting sections 2, 4, and 5
of the 1870 article. None of these were properly matters for inclu-
sion in a basic document and each of them had caused some
legal and practical anomalies. But striking them was complex and
difficult.
In its totality, the new education article is vastly superior to the
one it replaced. The story of this enterprise is admirably told in Ms.
Buresh's volume.
Richard G. Browne
Staff Counsel, Committee
on Education, Sixth Illinois
Constitutional Convention
A FUNDAMENTAL GOAL
The Education Committee:
Composition and Procedure
All state constitutions set forth the general structure which govern-
ment is to take, and all provide for a division of that structure into
three branches. There is less unanimity among state constitutions as
to what specific functions and powers state and local governments
are to be given. This is particularly true in the area of education, for
although most state constitutions include an education article, opin-
ion is divided on whether such a provision is necessary or even
desirable. Since education is one of the areas reserved for state gov-
ernment by the federal Constitution, any reference to it in the
constitution limits, rather than extends, the power of the state legis-
lature. If a state constitution remains silent on the subject of edu-
cation, the only restrictions on the state legislature in handling the
area are the general provisions of the federal Constitution or indirect
restrictions in the state charter.
When the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention was called,
Illinois had had three constitutions since its establishment in 1818,
only the last of which had included an education article. By Novem-
ber of 1968, when the voters of Illinois approved the calling of the
convention, the existing education article shared an obsolescence
common to many portions of the 1870 constitution. Criticisms had
been leveled at almost all of its articles. The state's revenue and
taxing provisions were outdated and inequitable. In some cases,
compliance was impossible and the provisions were simply ignored.
4 A Fundamental Goal
Since 1870 eight attempts had been made to amend this article, and
all had failed. The judicial article, although completely revised by
a 1962 amendment, was the object of attack for its provision for
elected judges. The organization and procedures of the General As-
sembly were archaic and cumbersome. The provisions for reappor-
tionment were ineffective and possibly, in light of the one man-one
vote Supreme Court decision, unconstitutional. The relationship
between the state and its local governments needed modernization
and redefinition to take account of twentieth century urbanization
and its attendant problems. And finally, the article providing for
constitutional amendment was itself overdue for revision.
Concerning the 1870 education article in particular, there were
few criticisms prior to the 1969 convention because most legal and
constitutional experts had not given attention to the topic. The ban
on aid to nonpublic education was probably the most controversial
part of the article, but the debate centered around the legislature,
where bills were regularly introduced to allow some form of finan-
cial assistance. In the months preceding the convention, only one
Chicago newspaper mentioned specifically the need for revision in
the constitutional provisions dealing with education. One article
suggested the desirability of appointing, rather than continuing to
elect, the state superintendent of public instruction, and another
asked for a revision of the tax burden so the state would be able to
provide more money for schools.1
The most insistent demands for change came from educational
experts, who had long been seeking various reforms which they now
hoped a constitutional convention could accomplish. In particular
these experts advocated the creation of a state board of education
that would make long-range policies for education in the state and
would appoint the state's chief educational officer. In addition,
those who felt strongly one way or the other on the issue of state aid
to nonpublic schools hoped the constitutional convention would re-
consider this problem.
After voter approval of the calling of a convention, the next step
was the election of delegates. The 1870 constitution provided that
two delegates be elected from each of Illinois's senatorial districts,
subject to the same qualifications as state senators. At the time of
1 Chicago Sun-Times, February 25, 1968 and October 3, 1968.
The Education Committee 5
the election Illinois had fifty-eight senatorial districts. Eighteen dis-
tricts were in the city of Chicago, six in Cook County outside Chi-
cago, and thirty-four outside of Cook County. The legislature, on
the recommendation of the Constitution Study Commission and with
urging from bar associations, newspapers, and civic groups, decided
that the election would be nonpartisan. Although no party designa-
tions appeared on the ballot, the major political parties endorsed
candidates, as did other political groups — such as the Independent
Voters of Illinois, the Illinois Agricultural Association, the Indepen-
dent Precinct Organization, the Independent Democratic Coalition,
the Illinois Communist Party, and the National Socialist Alliance.
One newspaper breakdown of the party alignment of the 1 1 6 dele-
gates showed fifty-six Republican-endorsed candidates, forty-seven
Democratic-endorsed candidates, and thirteen Independent candi-
dates.2
The convention met in Springfield; its organization took shape
during the first weeks of December 1969. The office of president
was created and given broad executive and administrative powers.
Samuel W. Witwer, a Republican from Kenilworth and longtime
advocate of constitutional reform, was elected president. Three vice-
presidents were provided for and elected : Thomas G. Lyons, a Chi-
cago Democrat, Elbert S. Smith, a Republican from Decatur, and
John Alexander, a Republican from Virden (at twenty-seven one
of the youngest members of the convention ) . The convention elected
Odas Nicholson, a black Democrat from Chicago, to serve as
secretary.
The committee structure grew directly out of a set of proposed
rules drafted for the convention by a legislative study commission
and approved by the convention's Temporary Rules Committee.
Nine substantive committees were established: bill of rights, legis-
lative, executive, judiciary, revenue and finance, suffrage and con-
stitutional amendment, local government, general government, and
education. Three procedural committees were also created: rules
2 Chicago Tribune, November 19, 1969. Other Chicago newspapers came
up with slightly different figures. The Chicago Daily News and the Chicago
Sun-Times reported 58 Republicans, 5 independent Republicans, 39 Democrats,
11 independent Democrats, and 3 Independents (November 20, 1969). Chicago
Today said the figures were 51 Republicans, 42 Democrats, 21 Independents,
and 2 undetermined (November 19, 1969).
6 A Fundamental Goal
and credentials; style, drafting, and submission; and public infor-
mation.
The inclusion of a committee on education was not without con-
troversy. At the planning sessions of the Constitution Study Com-
mission there had been a movement to eliminate an education com-
mittee from the convention and thus an education article from the
constitution. The move was led by Commission member Samuel
K. Gove of the University of Illinois, who felt that an education
committee might make provisions for higher education which would
prove detrimental to education beyond the secondary level. In addi-
tion he did not consider education a necessary part of a constitution.
Gove was adamantly opposed by Witwer — also a Commission
member — who felt a committee should be established to deal with
the education article in the 1870 constitution; Witwer was espe-
cially concerned with the controversial ban on aid to nonpublic
schools, which was seen as one of the most emotional, and thus one
of the most potentially destructive, issues at the convention. Gove's
proposal was defeated and an education committee was proposed
and established.
The Members
Under his powers as chief executive officer, President Witwer had
full authority after consultation with the vice-presidents to appoint
committee members, chairmen, and vice-chairmen. These appoint-
ments were subject to approval by a majority of the members of
the convention. The president himself was a nonvoting member of
each substantive committee, and each vice-president was an ex
officio member of three substantive committees.
There were eleven members on the Education Committee, in-
cluding the chairman and vice-chairman. Ideological differences
and a complex of other factors soon split the committee into two
factions with differing ideas as to the amount of reform that should
be included in the final education article. This division was recog-
nized not only by members of the committee but also by the press,
which dubbed the two groups the "Young Turks" and the "Old
Guard."3 The Young Turks were a social group as well as a com-
3 Tony Abel, of WCIA-TV in Champaign, Illinois, was apparently the first
to use the term in press coverage of the committee.
The Education Committee 7
mittee faction with close friendships formed among their members —
a camaraderie which made voting against one another very difficult.
If this group of strong-willed individuals can be said to have had
a leader, it was Malcolm Kamin, a bright, ambitious, and vocifer-
ous lawyer from Chicago, thirty years old, a Democrat, and a Jew.
Kamin was a study in contrasts: his self-confidence and somewhat
brash manner at times galled other committee members, but his
quick and enticing wit made it difficult to remain angry at him for
long. He, much to the distress of President Witwer and the official
parliamentarian, was the convention's self-appointed amateur par-
liamentarian. As resident expert on Alice in Wonderland he amused
the convention as often as he irritated it. His unpredictability ex-
tended even into the political realm, and his positions on issues were
often a source of speculation among other delegates. Although
seemingly a liberal in conscience, Kamin was a member of the
Chicago Democratic organization and had political ambitions which
caused him to support at times positions he opposed — though not
on educational issues. He seemed able to convince himself that his
final positions were consistent with his philosophy, but others re-
mained skeptical. Most transgressions were forgiven him, however,
due to his exuberant personality, his sense of humor, and his obvious
grasp of complex issues even in fields outside of his experience.
Kamin consulted most frequently on matters of committee strat-
egy with another Young Turk, Franklin Dove of Shelbyville. Dove
was the grandson of a delegate to the ill-fated 1920-22 Illinois
Constitutional Convention and was following the family tradition
of liberal political activity. He was thirty-four years old, a Demo-
crat, and a Protestant. Because his interests lay elsewhere, he was
bitterly disappointed with his appointment to the Education Com-
mittee; but once he became enthused about his task he was one of
the committee's most influential members. Dove's quiet demeanor
at the convention, an aspect which was quite misleading to anyone
who did not know him well, hid a shrewd mind which grasped the
core of every issue. It is to him and to Kamin that most of the credit
is due for the careful wording of the new sections of the education
article. Not as flamboyant as Kamin, Dove had an air of gravity
which helped the Young Turks to be taken more seriously by the
older members of the committee and by the convention itself.
8 A Fundamental Goal
If Kamin and Dove were responsible for the exact wording of
the new sections of the proposed education article, Samuel Patch
was responsible for its spirit. Patch was a colorful, articulate black,
a former teacher and city employee from Chicago, age thirty-seven,
a Democrat, and a Protestant. He regaled the committee and the
convention with his constant exhortation, "You've got to make it
real!" — a phrase in vogue at the time on the Springfield scene.
Totally pledged to education as a means of providing increased op-
portunities for black children, Patch, unlike other members of the
Young Turks, was optimistic about the chances of writing an excel-
lent education article. He was less cognizant of or less influenced
by the limitations of a constitution, and thus less pessimistic about
the significance of the outcome of the article. It was his enthusiasm
that helped the other younger members eventually to take a greater
interest in writing a new article.
The member of the committee closest to Sam Patch was William
Fogal, a young political science professor from Pekin, thirty-six
years old, a Democrat, and a Protestant. Patch seemed to sense in
Fogal a commitment to education as zealous as his own, but Fogal
attributed his own enthusiasm almost solely to Patch's influence.
Extremely sensitive and shy, Fogal spoke up in committee only
when he had something substantive to contribute. His cordial man-
ner endeared him not only to the younger committee members but
also to the Old Guard, and it is likely that without his intermediary
efforts the rift which developed between the two factions in the
committee would never have been healed.
Of the three women on the committee, Betty Howard of St.
Charles was certainly the most articulate. She was thirty-nine years
old and a Protestant. An advertising and public relations executive,
Howard was accustomed to having her opinions heeded by both
males and females, and was one of the convention's most ardent
sponsors of the women's rights section of the proposed bill of rights.
Although a Republican from a largely Republican district, she held
views in committee that placed her with the Young Turks, all the
rest of whom were Democrats. At the convention itself she seemed
more at home with other liberal Republicans than with the Demo-
crats. When the convention moved its location to the Old State
The Education Committee 9
Capitol in March 1970, Howard delighted members by appearing
in a costume that might have been worn when the building was
dedicated in the mid-nineteenth century. Her presence on the com-
mittee, in addition to adding zest, prevented the two sides from
being seen as completely Republican versus Democratic factions.
The last delegate who might be considered a member of the
Young Turk faction was Gloria Pughsley, an employee of the city
of Chicago, and the committee's other black member. She was fifty-
four years old, a Protestant, and a Democrat. None of the commit-
tee members came to know Pughsley well, as she was ill during
most of the committee meetings. When she did speak, she spoke
emotionally; her only significant impact at committee meetings
was swelling the voting strength of the Young Turk faction. At the
full convention she voted strictly with the Chicago Democratic
organization.
Chairman Paul Mathias was the leader of the Old Guard faction.
Mathias was an able lawyer from Bloomington, age sixty-seven, a
Protestant, and a Republican. Like many members of the Young
Turks, Mathias was nonplussed by his appointment to the Com-
mittee on Education. He might have become an effective in-
formal as well as formal leader had the committee not become
divided into factions, and had not his occasionally abrasive manner
and his obvious displeasure with most of the proposals of the Young
Turks prevented him from gaining power over the younger mem-
bers. Because Mathias was a member of the Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee to the Board of Higher Education and had been legal counsel
to the Illinois Board of Regents, he was seen as tied to higher edu-
cation and his recommendations in this area were met with suspi-
cion by the entire committee. In other areas of education, however,
his lead was followed by the Old Guard. Since his interests lay
elsewhere, he at times tended to rush consideration of educational
matters, and this was a further source of irritation to the Young
Turks. Mathias was greatly respected at the convention and was
often consulted by President Witwer, especially because of his in-
fluence in agricultural circles.
The most winsome member of the committee was J. Lester Bu-
ford, at seventy-two the convention's oldest delegate. A former
io A Fundamental Goal
superintendent of schools from Mount Vernon, Buford had long
been a highly regarded leader in education in southern Illinois. He
was a Protestant and a Republican. Buford was well liked by all
members of the committee, but was seen by the Young Turks as
a member of the educational establishment.4 His inexhaustible
supply of anecdotes and joviality, however, often helped to ease ten-
sion. Like William Fogal of the younger group, Buford became very
desirous of healing the wounds which developed within the com-
mittee, and his efforts to reach compromise brought him closer to
the Young Turks.
Louis Bottino from Wilmington was one of the quieter delegates;
in the committee that discussed aid to nonpublic schools, few dele-
gates realized he was a Catholic. His reserve was constant except in
discussions on financing the public schools, when he berated the
committee for not giving close enough attention to the subject.
Bottino, a Republican, age fifty-three, was a college professor and
a former legislator and county superintendent of schools. His views
were probably more liberal than his voting record would indicate,
for he was originally a member of the Young Turk faction but
switched sides when controversy began. He often appeared to be
caught in a vise between his own conscience and the wishes of his
more conservative constituents.
Anne Evans, a housewife from Des Plaines, was the committee's
vice-chairman. Age forty-five, a Protestant, and an independent
Republican, she became a mother to all of the members. She sin-
cerely worried about them, their health, and their problems. Her
sensitive soul was appalled by the breakdown in committee relations
but she did not become a successful peacemaker. Although she had
been thought to be a liberal Republican, she voted with the Old
Guard faction because she had more faith in their opinions on
educational matters. Evans was one of the most conscientious of the
4 During the convention the term "educational establishment" was used to
refer to the traditional organized groups concerned with educational policy
making, such as the Illinois Parent-Teachers Association, the Illinois Education
Association, boards of education, and the Illinois School Problems Commission,
as well as individuals who had made their careers in the administration of
educational facilities. (Persons whose acquaintance with the Illinois Education
Association is recent may be surprised to see it listed with the educational
establishment. At the outset of the convention, however, it was still a very
conservative operation.)
The Education Committee 1 1
committee members and could often be found in the committee
office doing research on issues with which she was unfamiliar.
Clyde Parker, age sixty-six, a Protestant, and a Republican from
Lincolnwood, was perhaps the most inflexible member of the com-
mittee. He had a doctoral degree in education, and preferred to be
called "Doctor." He had long been associated with education as a
professor and as a superintendent of schools. By his own admission,
the views he had developed over the years were not changed by
anything he heard in committee or at the convention. Because of
his long, rambling speeches and his orientation to the educational
establishment, the Young Turks came to regard him as an impedi-
ment to educational reform and to feel that he did not comprehend
the real issues involved. Parker, in turn, was overly suspicious of the
younger members and felt that Chicago's Mayor Daley was trying
to gain something "sneaky" through the proposals of that group.
Due to his background it is not surprising that Parker was conser-
vative on educational matters, and the Young Turks turned resent-
ment they felt toward his conservative stance into resentment for
what they termed the whole educational establishment.
While not properly a member of the committee, Dr. Richard G.
Browne, the committee counsel, was himself an unsuccessful candi-
date for delegate and took a great interest in the content of the
article. Although his sense of humor and wealth of knowledge en-
deared him to the members, he was a former executive director of
the Illinois Board of Higher Education and this experience in the
educational establishment tended to cast him with the Old Guard
in the minds of the younger faction. When asked, Browne was not
reticent in expressing his opinions, which generally placed him with
the Old Guard.
The composition of the Education Committee can be broken
down as follows: there were two blacks and nine whites; eight men
and three women; five downstate delegates, three suburban Cook
County delegates, and three Chicago delegates; three Chicago
Democrats, two downstate Democrats, five downstate or suburban
Republicans, and one who called herself an Independent but voted
with the Republicans; five educators, three lawyers, and two city
employees; nine Protestants, a Jew, and a Catholic. All were college
graduates, and the median age was forty-nine.
12 A Fundamental Goal
Frustration and Factionalism
Appointments to the Committee on Education were the subject of
much discussion and not a little dissatisfaction. Education was a
committee deemed very important by President Witwer. During
meetings of the Constitution Study Commission created by the legis-
lature, he fought for a committee devoted to education, and those
who assisted him with committee assignments say he gave it the
same attention he gave other committees in regard to political, eth-
nic, geographical, and sexual representation. The only additional
criterion he considered was that the chairman must be one who had
no strong views for or against aid to nonpublic schools. The dele-
gates, however, were not privy to this information, and to them the
facts seemed to tell a very different story.
The Chicago Democrats were in the minority on the Education
Committee as they were on all the committees. Though the compo-
sition looked balanced when downstate Democrats were counted,
the Chicago Democrats were greatly displeased. They considered
their downstate colleagues unknown quantities whose votes could
not be counted upon. There were surprisingly few of the conven-
tion's thirteen blacks on a committee dealing with an area of such
great concern to minority groups, and the single Catholic was also
surprising, since Catholics made up over a quarter of the whole
delegate body. Although it was asserted by sources close to Witwer
that the small Catholic representation was not a deliberate attempt
to influence the committee's output, nothing could alter the fact
that aid to nonpublic schools was to be in the hands of an over-
whelmingly Protestant committee.
While commentators outside the committee may have been con-
cerned over demographic facts such as these, many of the members
had a different complaint. Even at the early point when committee
appointments were made, it was felt that education — except for
the subject of aid to nonpublic schools — would be one of the least
controversial, least political, and least divided committees, and thus
one on which it would be least important to serve.5
The delegates had several reasons for wanting to serve at the
convention: the wish to be part of a historic occasion, the hope
5 Observations about delegate reaction to committee appointments are drawn
from the interviews and questionnaire described in the Preface to this volume.
The Education Committee 13
that participation would further a career in politics, the desire to
serve a political party or private organization, and the belief that
they had some special expertise to contribute to the creation of the
new document. Except for the last reason, which education experts
could realize, it was believed that none of the ambitions could be
satisfactorily fulfilled by being a member of the Committee on
Education. Because education was not considered to be a political
issue, it would draw little attention and would not further political
careers. Even the feeling of participating in a historic occasion
would be diminished by serving on a committee of little impor-
tance. In selecting committees on which they wished to serve, only
five of the 1 16 delegates made Education their first choice. (By con-
trast, the Local Government and Revenue Committees were the
first choice of twenty-five and twenty-eight delegates, respectively.)
Of the members of the Committee on Education, only five of the
eleven claimed to be pleased with their appointments. Delegates
Buford and Parker felt they had knowledge to furnish on the sub-
ject. Delegates Patch and Pughsley believed education to be an ex-
tremely important area for minority groups. The Education Com-
mittee was Howard's second preference, and she seems to have been
satisfied with her assignment. The remaining members of the com-
mittee felt their expertise lay in other fields and were generally upset
by the appointments. In completing a questionnaire distributed by
the author,6 they indicated disappointment, frustration, and anger
in response to the query: "What was your initial reaction to your
assignment to the Education Committee?" These delegates believed
their committee to be a catch-all for whoever was left after the other
committee appointments had been made. This feeling was rein-
forced by the fact that two members, Parker and Evans, were from
the same district — which seemed to them a result of lack of careful
geographic planning in Education Committee assignments. Al-
though their supposition may have been groundless in view of other
demographic considerations, these delegates believed themselves ne-
glected and underrated.
There also existed, at the start of the meetings, a sense of futility,
especially among the younger members of the Education Commit-
6 See Preface to this volume for a description of this questionnaire, which
was completed by all members of the Committee on Education.
14 A Fundamental Goal
tee. With the exception of the section on aid to nonpublic schools,
it was thought that there were no substantive issues to discuss. Mod-
ernization of the language presented no challenge. Most recommen-
dations at the constitutional level would be merely hortatory words
containing no mandate; goals would be stated, but there would be
no provisions to require the General Assembly to comply. Feelings
of futility appeared to develop not from the belief that education
was insignificant but rather from the opinion that little could be
done about it on the constitutional level. Thus the committee felt
itself, not education, to be inconsequential. The older delegates on
the committee were less subject to this feeling of fruitless effort;
they would have been content to remove anachronisms and to pro-
vide for a state board of education. The younger members wanted
to force innovation and to create an article that would "make a
difference." At the inception of committee meetings, however, these
younger delegates sensed that, given what they perceived to be a
conservative delegate body, a committee on which members of the
educational establishment were well represented, and general public
resistance to constitutional change (typified by the recent defeat of
proposed constitutions in three other states), innovation would be
difficult to accomplish.
The perceptions of these two groups, the older and the younger,
became crucial in creating and maintaining the two factions in the
committee. The Old Guard opted for modernization of the lan-
guage of Article VIII, the provision of some slight degree of flexibil-
ity for the future, the removal of anachronisms, and the creation of
structures that had long been the goals of educational experts. The
Young Turks, less imbued with educational experience but un-
willing to rely on the expertise of the older delegates, chose to work
for innovation in addition to the modernization asked for by the
Old Guard. They seemed to be saying with Rousseau : "People are
always telling me to make PRACTICAL suggestions. You might
as well tell me to suggest what people are doing already, or at least
to suggest improvements which may be incorporated with the
wrong methods at present in use."7 The futility felt by the Young
Turks led them to seek more radical solutions to educational diffi-
7 Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara Foxley (London: J. M. Dant
& Sons Ltd., 1957), p. 2.
The Education Committee i5
culties. They tended to see the steadfastness of the Old Guard,
who were all Republicans, as an outgrowth of partisan hostility.8
The Old Guard, on the other hand, attempted to seek solutions
within the existing system; they were being practical, and they felt
their suggestions more closely reflected prevailing public opinion.
They were hesitant to open themselves to "radical" new ideas and
were more cognizant of the need not to arouse undue opposition
from the voters. The Young Turks in their enthusiasm for creating
an innovative article were ready to take chances that certain "radi-
cal" ideas could be sold to the voters without bringing the document
to defeat. Thus, even at the very beginning of committee meetings,
the elements were present which would create the conflict over the
degree of reform to be included in the new article. Only on the
issue of aid to nonpublic schools would most members of both fac-
tions agree on what had to be done.
The Decision Process
The rules of the convention established the process by which the
1870 Illinois Constitution was to be revised, altered, or amended.
Each delegate could draft and submit his suggestions to the con-
vention; these were called member proposals. Five hundred eighty-
two member proposals were introduced and read before the assem-
bled delegates and assigned by the President to the appropriate
committee. Committees considered member proposals along with
research materials prepared in advance of the convention by the
Constitution Study Commission and the Governor's Constitution
Research Group and during the convention by staff researchers
employed by the convention for each committee.
8 While it is true that most of the Young Turks were Democrats and all of
the Old Guard were Republicans, there were other differences which played
at least as great, if not a greater, role in the schism between the two groups.
The average age of the Young Turks was 38 years, while that of the Old Guard
(including Committee Counsel Browne, a Democrat) was 62 years. Further-
more, the Young Turks may have subconsciously resented the much greater
educational experience of the older group and the smugness it may have en-
gendered. Meanwhile the Old Guard was apparently incensed at the frequent
failure of several of the Young Turks to arrive on time for committee meetings.
This was certainly the reaction of Chairman Mathias, who was more than once
heard to mutter that the younger members might be on time if they didn't
stay up to the early hours of the morning.
1 6 A Fundamental Goal
Committees also devoted a great deal of time to hearing testi-
mony from expert witnesses, citizens, and interest groups. This was
part of a public relations effort which also included "road shows"
(local public hearings) held throughout the state. It was widely
believed at the convention that the voters should be made to feel
involved in the constitution making to develop at the outset favor-
able public opinion of the convention and the proposed document.
Other steps were taken to insure the involvement of the people.
All meetings of the convention were open to the public, and an
agenda for each committee meeting had to be posted forty-eight
hours in advance. Journals and transcripts were available for public
inspection, and delegates were expected to be readily accessible to
their constituents. By means of this openness the public was kept
informed, their interest was stimulated, and they were made to feel
they had a part in the constitution making. In return, the delegates
could sense public reaction to various proposals before they made
final decisions on what to include in the constitution.
Openness also had disadvantages. Narrow proposals which would
benefit only certain interest groups had to be considered. A great
deal of redundant and irrelevant testimony was heard. Much atten-
tion had to be given to doing things for effect, and the impact of
convention decisions on the voters had to be considered. Although
openness was time consuming, the delegates would have been un-
wise to have proceeded differently. They were aware that many
proposed constitutions had recently failed to be approved by the
voters and they blamed this partly on a lack of public awareness and
interest. Public exposure, response, and feedback were integral to
their purpose.
After considering ideas from all sources, each committee drew up
language for a new article in the constitution. The proposed lan-
guage, called the committee proposal, was submitted to the con-
vention together with the committee report (the rationale for the
proposal). If there were three or more member dissents from the
majority proposal, a minority proposal and report - — ■ and sometimes
many of them — could also be submitted.
The majority and minority proposals of the committees were
submitted at first reading, and the proposal which emerged from
that stage was subject to two more readings at the full convention.
The Education Committee 17
The convention sat in plenary session for second and third readings ;
debate was limited and the previous question could be invoked,
though the debate-limiting devices were rarely used. After each
reading the proposals as amended and approved were sent to the
Committee on Style, Drafting, and Submission, where stylistic
changes were made. At the end of third reading the delegates gave
final approval to the substance and form of the constitution as it was
to be submitted for referendum approval by the voters.
The issues to be discussed by the Committee on Education were
chosen rather informally by the committee members themselves,
and subcommittees were organized around the topics. Forty-four
meetings of the Committee on Education were held in Springfield,
sometimes jointly with the Bill of Rights or Executive Committees.
Early meetings were devoted to the hearing of expert witnesses and
to member proposals, and later meetings to debate on the issues and
the writing of the final report.
The committee attempted to hear testimony from all educational
experts in Illinois as well as from all interested citizens. Although
the speakers were important in giving a general sense of group and
public feeling, especially on the topic of aid to nonpublic schools,
the committee members were influenced very little by witnesses. In
fact, questionnaire and interview data indicate that the formal con-
vention machinery to air issues had little effect on the members'
views on educational matters. Member proposals were not seen as
influential in committee decisions. Determinations on the issues had
been made by the members before testimony was even heard on
some of the proposals.9 Subcommittees were created, but they were
not perceived by the members as an important part of the com-
mittee process. Nor was research : data gathered for the committee
in most cases supported decisions already made, and was not seen
by the delegates as an important factor for the final committee pro-
posal. In addition, each member stated that he or she had been
elected to make his or her own decisions and that wishes of constit-
uents were not the primary factor in positions taken.
It is conceivable that the delegates were swayed by the pressure
of interest groups such as the Illinois Education Association, the
9 The committee minutes show votes were taken before testimony was heard
on many subjects.
18 A Fundamental Goal
Illinois Congress of Parents and Teachers, or the Illinois Catholic
Conference. There was, however, surprisingly little significant pres-
sure from these groups or from most other groups. The issue of
financing public schools provoked the only incidents of lobbying in
the committee. Representatives of the Illinois State Chamber of
Commerce attempted to get delegates to vote against total state
financing, while representatives of the Welfare Council of Metro-
politan Chicago attempted to gain votes for that same concept.
Most educational organizations seemed content to present their po-
sitions and then to let the committee handle the situation from
there. The only lobby which, while applying no obvious pressure,
might be seen as a significant factor in delegate positions is that
of higher education; pressures from that source are discussed in
some detail in Chapter IV of this volume.
If wishes of constituents were not the primary motivating factors
in delegate decisions — if little attention was paid to expert testi-
mony, witnesses, lobbyists, research, member proposals, or subcom-
mittees— then one must look elsewhere for the basis on which
decisions were made. The desire not to alarm the voters seems to
have been important mainly in controversial areas such as section
3 (aid to nonpublic schools). Most of the older committee mem-
bers had their minds made up as to educational matters prior
to any committee meetings. In response to the question, Do these
positions as stated represent your feelings during the whole pro-
ceedings or did your positions change? Parker and Buford specifi-
cally stated that their many years of experience in the field of edu-
cation had given rise to the views they held, which were not altered
during the convention. All of the members of the Old Guard except
Evans, who was less experienced in educational matters, indicated
similar positions.
It was only natural that men and women who felt they were
experts in the field of education would be hesitant to change view-
points they had developed over the years, but even the "non-ex-
perts" maintained a somewhat inflexible stance. Unlike most
members of the Old Guard, the majority of the Young Turks had
taken no strong positions on educational matters during their cam-
paigns. Very early in committee meetings, however, the Young
Turks developed stands on the issues and were not swayed to any
The Education Committee 19
greater degree by research, witnesses, constituents, lobbyists, or
member proposals than were the Old Guard. Apparently the Young
Turks formed their opinions during early discussions among all
members of the committee. In explaining their rigidity, Kamin
emphasized that initial discussions among all members of the com-
mittee logically led to the section on goals urged by the Young
Turks. The Old Guard, although having given lip service to a
strong statement of objectives, refused, according to Kamin, to ac-
cept proposals based on the viewpoint that the younger members
felt had been accepted by all — a viewpoint which recognized the
great need for emphasizing the priority of education. Like the Old
Guard, the younger members remained convinced of their correct-
ness and logic and refused, for a time, to change or to compromise.
The Young Turks at first attempted to use delaying tactics to
postpone final votes until the return of Pughsley, who they were
convinced would vote with them. Even if Pughsley failed to come
back to break the stalemate, the Young Turks knew they might win
if they delayed final votes long enough to force the Old Guard to
accept their wording. The younger members felt the solidarity of
their group was greater than that of the Old Guard. They expected
that some of the older delegates would eventually give in, thus
breaking the five-to-five stalemate and allowing majority and mi-
nority reports to be written. If the Old Guard did not split apart,
there was still the prospect of Pughsley's arrival to give the victory
to the younger members. Feeling that the ultimate triumph would
be theirs, the Young Turks savored being on a team and scheming
against an adversary.
The factions in the Committee on Education were formed by
differing viewpoints and conflicting feelings about the significance
and potential of the committee. Once they had coalesced, those fac-
tions took on an exaggerated importance in the minds of the mem-
bers. Belonging to a team and defeating the other team became
goals in themselves. A game was created, and winning against the
opponent became the purpose of playing. Eventually most of the
members realized they were playing games and they then subordi-
nated the importance of the factions and games to the larger goal of
compromise to draft an education article.
The article the committee finally submitted was drafted so as not
20 A Fundamental Goal
to arouse the opposition of the voters; but without the opposition
and interaction between the committee's factions, the article's inno-
vative features might never have been achieved. The committee
handled five general topics: the structure of the educational sys-
tem; the objectives of education; higher education; aid to nonpub-
lic schools; and the financing of the public school system. How the
eventual compromise between innovation and acceptability was ac-
complished will become clear in the upcoming chapters, where
these five major topics are discussed.
Deleting Portions of the 1870 Article
While very few convention decisions were made without careful
thought and debate, the overwhelming majority of delegates shared
from the outset the goal of deleting certain material which, in the
light of experience, had proved inappropriate for constitutional stat-
ure. There were three such sections in Article VIII, the education
article, of the 1870 constitution: 2, 4, and 5. Of them, only section
2 proved at all difficult to handle, either in committee or on the
floor. That section read :
All lands, moneys, or other property, donated, granted or re-
ceived for school, college, seminary or university purposes, and the
proceeds thereof, shall be faithfully applied to the objects for
which such gifts or grants were made.
As courts had interpreted section 2, its major effect was to pro-
hibit taxation or special assessment of public school property ac-
quired by gift, but only that property acquired prior to 1870. There-
fore, the section referred primarily to land acquired in the original
grant of land for statehood : section 1 6 of every township or prop-
erty acquired by using proceeds from section 16 lands. If school
authorities were unable to prove that the land was so acquired, it
was subject to taxation.
Committee research showed that most Illinois townships had sold
their section 16 lands years ago. A small number, however, kept the
proceeds from these sales in a "loanable fund" to be used for school
operating expenses. According to Dr. Browne, only seven townships
held either in land or in loanable funds as much as $50,000 of
The Education Committee 2 1
these receipts at the time of the convention. The Chicago Board of
Education held the largest amount of property under this section,
over four-fifths of the total, but the income from such property was
only a very small portion of the district budget. The result of the
deletion of the provision, the committee found, would be to place
school property acquired prior to 1870 in the same category as all
other school property used for school purposes, which was exempt
from taxation under Article IX, section 3, of the 1870 constitution.
Therefore, if such property was being used for school purposes it
would not be taxed. If not used for such purposes, it was subject
to a "use tax" in any case. Two member proposals were introduced
on this subject. Proposal 158 recommended the deletion of section
2, whereas Proposal 498 suggested a slight rewording of the section.
The April 8 vote in committee to eliminate the provision was
unanimous. The proposed deletion, however, caused sufficient con-
troversy when the first committee proposal reached the floor of the
convention for first reading on April 28, to cause Mathias to ask
for time for further consideration by the committee. On April 30
Delegate Thomas McCracken, an employee in the office of Cook
County Assessor P. J. Cullerton, spoke to the committee and ad-
vised deletion. Since most of the disagreement had come from per-
sons in the Chicago area, and since McCracken had presumably
consulted with his employer and with the Chicago Board of Educa-
tion, his suggestion was followed ; when section 2 was again brought
before the whole convention on May 6, the committee's recommen-
dation was to delete. As explained in the committee report:
The subject lies basically in the realm of inter-governmental tax-
ation and is properly an issue for legislation. . . .
The total impact of the section is so slight that the Committee
does not consider it to warrant a place in the Constitution.
Section 4, prohibiting any school officer from being interested in
the sale of "any book, apparatus or furniture" used in the schools,
was easily disposed of. On March 24 the first vote on the section
was taken ; the decision to delete it was unanimous. As stated in the
committee report :
The Committee on Education does not suggest that carefully
drafted conflict of interest prohibitions may not be appropriate
22 A Fundamental Goal
in educational institutions as elsewhere. But the Committee is
convinced that such provisions are properly legislative in char-
acter and should not appear in the Constitution. The Committee
heard no evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, section 5, which provided that there may be superin-
tendents of schools in each county, was omitted. There had recently
been serious question raised as to the necessity for such an office.
At the time of the 1970 convention there were five counties with
only one school district, eight with two school districts, and in forty-
five other counties the number of districts was less than ten. Only
thirteen of the 102 counties had more than twenty school districts.
Since the constitution did not require county superintendents of
schools, comprehensive legislation was passed in 1969 recognizing
the greatly changed nature of this office in these days of reorganized
and consolidated school districts. The bill changed the title of the
office to Superintendent of Educational Service Region, and autho-
rized the combining of two or more counties beginning in August of
1 97 1. By August of 1973 all counties of fewer than sixteen thousand
population were to have merged with neighboring counties to form
a region. By 1977 all counties of fewer than thirty-three thousand
must combine. Thus, the number of educational service regions was
to be substantially reduced, as had been advocated for years by
educational experts.
On March 24 a final vote was taken on section 5 : eight favored
deletion, one (Bottino) opposed deletion, and one (Buford) voted
present. The motion to strike having received a majority, the section
was removed with the understanding that the committee would
recommend creation of an intermediate office by law. Bottino gave
no explanation in committee or in answer to a questionnaire for his
vote. He had previously been a county superintendent of schools,
however, which may explain his desire to see that office continue
to receive constitutional recognition. Buford remarked at the meet-
ing on March 24 that he agreed with Bottino, but gave no reason
then or later for his opinion.
II
Creating a State Board of Education
That the convention would create a state board of education was
the hope of almost all educational experts and organizations. At
the time of the 1970 convention, Illinois and Wisconsin were the
only states without a state board to research and institute long-range
school policies.
In Illinois for many years the School Problems Commission,
made up of five senators and five representatives appointed by the
leadership of those bodies, and five laymen appointed by the gover-
nor, with the superintendent of public instruction and the director
of finance serving as ex officio members, had attempted to operate
in this capacity; however, its policy-making function was limited
to making recommendations to the General Assembly. The Com-
mission had been created in 1 947 and continued by a series of acts
until 1957 when it became permanent. It was the School Problems
Commission which, in 1963, recommended the creation of a state
board of education; the 1966 Illinois Task Force on Education, a
group appointed jointly by Governor Kerner, Superintendent of
Public Instruction Ray Page, and the Commission made the same
recommendation. All efforts at creating such a board by statute or
by constitutional provision had failed, and in 1969 the report of
the School Problems Commission read: "This perennial question
has been raised frequently during the many hearings. [It] is nearly
always related to the selection of the Superintendent of Public In-
23
24 A Fundamental Goal
struction. The Commission feels that this question should be faced
and solved by the Constitutional Convention."1
Several reasons had been given over time for the creation of a
state board of education. The General Assembly, it was said, does
not have sufficient time to study adequately all the proposals which
come before it, and a state board of education could provide valu-
able assistance by studying school problems, proposing solutions,
and analyzing the effect of school legislation. The state board of
education could coordinate the work of various committees and
commissions which deal with specific educational problems. With
long-term, overlapping membership, such a board could provide
continuity in long-range planning and study and could evaluate the
results of its recommendations and policies, thus eliminating the
need for much emergency and temporary legislation. In addition,
recommendations of such a board would supposedly be given more
attention by the General Assembly than those of a single elected
official or of regional or interest groups, because a properly com-
posed state board would be representative of all people in the state.
It was also agreed that the General Assembly is more likely to give
adequate power to such a board than to an official chosen on a
partisan ballot. Finally, a state board would provide the public with
a visible and continuing body to which it could bring its school
problems.
Many of these arguments could have been used to support the
continuance of the School Problems Commission, which proposed
legislation and studied educational matters. It was conceivable that
a state board of education would have no more extensive powers
than the Commission. However, advocates of the creation of the
board pointed out that the majority of members on the Commission
were elected officials with other responsibilities and loyalties, that
the Commission had an inadequate staff, and that its existence was
at the discretion of the legislature. In addition, the Commission
itself had never assumed that it should be concerned with educa-
tional problems except those that could be dealt with by appro-
priate legislation.2 Presumably, the scope and interest of a state
1 Illinois, School Problems Commission, Report (Springfield, 1969), p. 5.
2 Orville Alexander, "Education," in Con-Con: Issues for the Illinois Con-
stitutional Convention, ed. Samuel K. Gove and Victoria Ranney (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1970), p. 441.
Creating a State Board of Education 25
board would be broader since its members would have no other
responsibilities and since policy making and evaluation would be
part of its job.
Election or Appointment?
As noted in the School Problems Commission report, controversy
over the manner of selection of the superintendent of public in-
struction was one of the main obstacles to the creation of a state
board. In 1854 the office of superintendent of education was cre-
ated by statute; the superintendent was to be appointed by the
governor for a two-year term. The constitution of 1870 changed
the name of the office to superintendent of public instruction and
made it an elective, four-year position. Numerous experts had since
suggested that an officer with such heavy responsibility for the
schools should not be subjected to the necessity of running in a
partisan election every four years. The elective aspect of the office
had been under attack since as early as 191 5, when the report of
the Efficiency and Economy Committee pointed out that popular
election was not the proper way to select a professional to head the
state's educational system. Critics had also noted that the elective
nature of the position led to political patronage, especially since the
office was one of the few specifically exempt from the state's person-
nel code, which governs the amount of patronage permitted.
Another obstacle to the creation of a state board of education was
the controversy over the manner in which board members would
be selected. The 1963 recommendation of the School Problems
Commission was that board members be appointed by the governor.
The 1 966 Task Force on Education also suggested the appointment
of members but later amended its report to favor not stipulating a
method of selection, preferring to leave the matter to the legislature.3
Research done for the Committee on Education by Dr. Browne
gleaned the following information concerning selection of the board
members. Thirty-two states had boards appointed by the governor.
Of these, sixteen were selected with the consent of the senate, twelve
were appointed by the governor alone, three were appointed with
the consent of an advisory council, and one was appointed with the
3 Illinois, Task Force on Education, Education for the Future of Illinois
(Springfield, 1966), p. 60.
26 A Fundamental Goal
consent of the legislature. In eleven states the members of the board
were selected by popular election. In Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada,
Ohio, and Utah the election was on a nonpartisan basis, whereas
partisan designations appeared on the ballots of Colorado, Kansas,
Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, and Texas. A few states had
other methods of selecting board members. In New York and South
Carolina members were elected by the legislature; in Florida and
Mississippi the board was made up of elected officials ex officio ; and
in Washington the board was chosen by the board of directors of
local school districts.
Not all forty-eight states that had boards provided for their man-
ner of selection in their constitutions. The composition of the boards
was determined by statute in twenty-nine states. Of the states which
stipulated the manner of selection in their constitution, nine pro-
vided for election and eight for appointment. The two states with
ex officio boards provided for this constitutionally.
Popular election of the chief state school officer was at one time
the method of selection used in most of the states. By 1970, how-
ever, only twenty states continued to use this system. Between 1 945
and 1970, numerous states had changed from electing this officer
to appointing him, but no state had switched from appointment to
election.
Six member proposals presented to the convention (8, 53, 90,
161, 267, 367) dealt with the establishment of a state board of
education. All asked that such a board be created, and all but one
recommended that the board appoint the superintendent of public
instruction. The one exception, Member Proposal 367, did not
mention such an official. If the proposals were any indication of
delegate feeling, it appeared there would be little controversy about
the creation of a state board which would appoint the chief educa-
tional officer. This sense of unanimity was reinforced by the testi-
mony of witnesses: of forty-three who spoke on the subject, forty-
one favored creation of such a board.
Although in agreement as to the need for such a board, the
member proposals differed as to the manner of selection of its mem-
bers. Three of the proposals asked that the board be elected, two of
these (8 and 267) recommending election of one member from
each congressional district, while the third (53) suggested the crea-
Creating a State Board of Education 27
tion of fifteen special districts for such election. Two other proposals
( 90 and 161) left the manner of selection of the board to the legis-
lature, while the sixth proposal (367) asked that the board be ap-
pointed by the governor.
The argument over election versus appointment of the superin-
tendent and other state officials appeared time and again during
the course of the convention. Those who favored appointment of
the state superintendent felt that few qualified individuals have the
political expertise to run for election, or wish to risk their careers
or spend the money needed for a political campaign ; those who do
become candidates are usually supported by a political party and
are answerable to that party after the election. It was also noted
that, with a proliferation of elective offices, voters do not have the
time or the information to make the best selection among candi-
dates. The same concerns were expressed in consideration of
method of selection of other officials throughout the convention. In
addition, those favoring appointment felt the state's chief educa-
tional officer, especially, should be chosen for his professional qual-
ifications rather than for his vote-getting ability and while in office
should be concerned with the job before him rather than with
reelection.
The argument in favor of elective rather than appointive offices
was generally that of leaving the power to the people.4 It was also
thought that officers who were chosen in popular elections would
be more responsive to the popular will. Proponents of appointment
cited studies of accountability in state government that brought
into question the premise that effective control by the people is
achieved through a long ballot of elected officials. Nevertheless, the
Illinois Federation of Teachers, the only significant organization in
Illinois which opposed creation of a state board of education, ap-
parently based its resistance on the appointment of the state's chief
educational officer, which it saw as concomitant with the creation
of the board. Delegate Dwight Friedrich, a member of the Execu-
4 According to a 191 8 history of Illinois constitutional conventions, increas-
ing the number of popularly elected officers was intended to give the people
greater control over the administration of the state government. Illinois Legis-
lative Reference Bureau, Constitutional Conventions in Illinois (Springfield:
Schnepp and Barnes, 191 9), p. 44.
28 A Fundamental Goal
tive Committee, was a leader in seeking to keep the office elective,
and it was consideration of this issue which led to a joint meeting
of the Education and Executive Committees.
The general agreement among organizations and witnesses in
favor of the creation of a state board of education broke down over
the manner of selection of the board members. Of the forty-one
witnesses who spoke in favor of a state board of education, four
were in favor of an elected board, fourteen were in support of an
appointed board (most mentioned appointment by the governor),
and twenty-three felt that the manner of selection should be left to
the General Assembly. Some of the witnesses were speaking as indi-
vidual laymen, but most were educational experts or representatives
of organizations with an interest in education.
The arguments given for an elected state board of education
were similar to those mentioned above in regard to the election of a
chief state educational officer; those favoring an appointed board
gave reasons similar to the reasons for the appointment of such an
officer. An example of the arguments for an appointed board was
provided by the Illinois Congress of Parents and Teachers:
Our preference is for a Board which is appointed by the Governor
with the assistance of a selection committee. We do not believe
there is any way for members of a State Board of Education to be
elected which can entirely by-pass the political machinery in both
the nominating and electing process.
Witnesses seemed to feel that education, unlike the other aspects
of state government, must be kept out of partisan politics. This was
a frequently recurring theme throughout discussions of all aspects
of the article.
Most of the research materials and witnesses appeared to favor
leaving the manner of selection of the state board to the legislature
but giving the board the power to appoint the state's chief educa-
tional officer. The witnesses based their arguments for legislative
selection of the board on one or both of the following: first, that
neither election nor appointment could be shown to be superior to
the other, and second, that neither method should be frozen into
the constitution, preventing change at a later date.
In committee testimony not one reform or good government
Creating a State Board of Education 29
group (such as the League of Women Voters or the Urban League)
was in favor of an elected state board. This was a trend noticeable
throughout the convention : reform groups almost always supported
appointive methods and the short ballot, whereas the elective sys-
tem was favored by blacks, party Democrats, and delegates from
southern Illinois and small towns, who feared a lack of representa-
tion for their regions. Reformers hesitate to insist upon the "demo-
cratic" electoral process, for they claim to have found that with the
ballot comes partisanship and patronage.5 This hesitancy is, of
course, most evident in discussions of the ostensibly nonpolitical
subject of education. As the committee began to consider the issues,
it was agreed as to the need for a state board of education, but split
on the manner of selection of its members.
Jurisdiction of the Board
Also undecided at the outset of committee deliberations was the
question of the board's jurisdiction. A preliminary vote taken on
February 18 showed six members favoring one board for all public
education, kindergarten through the university, while four opted
for a state board to cover only up to grade twelve. At this point no
one was in favor of leaving the matter of the board's jurisdiction to
the discretion of the legislature. In regard to the manner of selection
of the board, four wanted an elected board, five favored leaving the
manner of selection to the General Assembly, and no one desired
an appointed board.
The issue of the jurisdiction of the board was not widely discussed
prior to the convention. At the time of the convention Illinois had
no body governing elementary and secondary education, but many
boards dealing with higher education. Committee research indi-
cated that thirty-two of the forty-eight states with state boards of
education gave their boards responsibility only through the second-
ary level; eleven state boards were given additional responsibility
for a portion of higher education, and five of the state boards had
jurisdiction over all of public education through the university level.
Most witnesses did not speak directly to the issue of jurisdiction,
5 This sentiment was expressed by Albert Raby, Wayne Whalen, Peter
Tomei, and Anne Evans in interviews with the author, April 1970.
30 A Fundamental Goal
but since the committee was divided on the subject, it was a ques-
tion often asked of witnesses by committee members. Most re-
sponded that they were in favor of two boards, one for education
through grade twelve and one for higher education. Among those
individuals and organizations taking this position were various rep-
resentatives of higher education, the Illinois Education Association,
the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, and the Conference on a
State Board of Education and an Appointive Superintendent — a
group made up of educators and laymen. The reason most fre-
quently given for this stand was that higher and lower education
have different problems and different responsibilities.
Professor Gove testified in support of leaving the jurisdiction of
the board to the General Assembly, while two other witnesses, Cook
County Superintendent of Schools Robert Hanrahan and Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction Ray Page, were in favor of an overall
board. On this Page declared :
After careful evaluation and study I believe that the present pro-
liferation of all phases of education and related areas into a wide
variety of boards, commissions, and committees has encouraged
and aided duplication and fragmentation of our educational sys-
tem in the state of Illinois. There is no existing state board dealing
with elementary and secondary schools; but to add one more state
board for the purpose of dealing with this level of education
seems to me to be an extension of the fragmentation which I have
referred to.
Two member proposals dealing with the state board mentioned
its jurisdiction. Proposal 267 stated:
The operation and administration of the public school system,
including State higher education institutions, shall be the respon-
sibility of a State School Board.
Member Proposal 53 read:
The State Board of Education has jurisdiction over all public
education, through the 14th grade which includes junior colleges.
Proposal 367 was unclear but resembled Proposal 53 in referring
to "all institutions established or authorized to provide education
and training pursuant to this Article." Delegate Mathias, who wrote
Proposal 161, was strongly opposed to a superboard; his wording
Creating a State Board of Education 31
refers only to "the system of free schools." Proposal 90, written by
Fogal, mentioned that the board should have "jurisdiction over all
public schools in Illinois." This terminology is vague and could be
read to cover education through the university level, as Fogal's
voting record in the committee would indicate he intended.
Between the preliminary vote on February 18 and the second
vote, on March 4, there was a slight decline in support for a super-
board. Only five members (Buford, Dove, Fogal, Howard, and
Patch) favored a superboard and four members (Bottino, Evans,
Mathias, and Parker) still opposed it; Kamin voted present and
Pughsley was absent. The same day, Bottino, Evans, Mathias, and
Kamin were willing to let the jurisdiction be provided by law, while
the remaining six wanted that decision to be made by the conven-
tion. On March 1 1 a report supporting the committee proposal and
written by Dr. Browne was tentatively approved except for the topic
of jurisdiction. A hand vote on this date revealed, however, that
the number of committee members favoring an overall board had
dropped to four. On the next day, Dove submitted tentative word-
ing to which the committee unanimously agreed :
The board shall establish goals, determine policies, provide for
planning and evaluating educational programs, recommend fi-
nancing and have such jurisdiction, powers and duties as provided
by law.
This was not to be the final wording of the committee's proposal,
but the delegates had at least agreed that the jurisdiction of the
board would be left to the General Assembly — a rather rapid turn-
about from the vote of the day before. On February 18 no one had
favored leaving the jurisdiction to the legislature; on March 4 six
members had opposed this alternative; and on March 1 1 four still
were in opposition. By March 12, however, support was unanimous.
It is possible the sudden change of position was due to a realiza-
tion that unanimity would not be reached by the committee or by
the full convention, and that it would be better to let the legislature
decide the issue. Perhaps the delegates realized flexibility was
needed in this area. The timing of the changes in position, however,
presents another more likely alternative. From February 25 on,
sporadic discussion of educational objectives had been taking place
32 A Fundamental Goal
in the committee ; on March 1 1 , the day before the compromise vote
on jurisdiction, the subcommittee on objectives presented its report.
Quite possibly, committee members were beginning to realize how
difficult it would be to reach agreement on educational objectives
and to understand that other problems, such as jurisdiction, would
have to be resolved quickly to clear the agenda for that battle.
Kamin's behavior may also have been significant in bringing
about a compromise on jurisdiction. The most influential and cer-
tainly the most vociferous member of the Young Turks, he had
already voted for allowing the jurisdiction to be provided by law.
It is quite possible the younger members, now fused into a strong
and cohesive group, were influenced by his fear that the representa-
tives of higher education might work for the defeat of the whole
article if it contained provisions for a superboard.6
A Compromise on Manner of Selection
The second structural issue on which there was dissension was that
of the manner of selection of the board members. The preliminary
vote on February 18 showed four (Howard, Buford, Parker, and
Patch) in favor of an elected board and five choosing to leave the
manner of selection to the General Assembly. No one at this time
voted for an appointed board, although in the author's question-
naire Bottino, Mathias, and Evans favored an appointed board
established by the legislature. The vote on March 4 revealed that
Howard no longer wished to require an elected board in the con-
stitution, but that Buford, Parker, and Patch still wished to do so.
Dove came out in favor of an appointed board stipulated in the
constitution, and the remaining delegates voted to leave the issue
to the legislature.
On March 1 1 the subcommittee on structure presented its re-
port on the manner of selection. The subcommittee was divided
and was able to report only this division. But, as with jurisdiction,
the committee reached an almost unanimous decision the following
day on the proposal presented by Dove :
There shall be a state board of education selected on a regional
6 Malcolm Kamin, in an interview with the author, March 12, 1970.
Creating a State Board of Education 33
basis. The number of members, their qualifications, terms of office
and manner of selection shall be provided by law.
The term "selected," Dove made clear, was intended to mean either
elected or appointed.
Parker still voted in favor of an elected board. Patch was not
particularly happy, but seemed to prefer voting with the other
Young Turks to siding with Parker. Buford was placated by inclu-
sion of the phrase, "on a regional basis," for his greatest fear had
been a lack of representation for southern Illinois. Again, this con-
sensus was possible for many reasons. The most likely was that
because of the division on the subject of educational goals, there
was hesitancy to continue argument on other issues. Most of the
committee's time would have to be devoted to attaining agreement
on the objectives of education.
By April 8 the divisiveness in the committee generally had been
resolved, as will be shown, and unanimous acceptance was given
this final wording regarding the state board :
There shall be a State Board of Education selected on a re-
gional basis. The number of members, their qualifications, terms
of office and manner of selection shall be provided by law. The
Board shall establish goals, determine policies, provide for plan-
ning and evaluating educational programs, recommend financing
and have such jurisdiction, powers and duties as provided by law.
There shall be a chief state educational officer appointed by
the State Board of Education.
Ill
Formulating Educational Objectives
Article VIII, section i, of the 1870 constitution read:
The General Assembly shall provide a thorough and efficient
system of free schools, whereby all children of this State may re-
ceive a good common school education.
When written in 1870 this was a new constitutional provision for
Illinois, for neither the 18 18 nor the 1848 constitutions required a
statewide school system. Although there had been attempts through-
out the years to establish school systems in Illinois by statute, the
first really effective school code was not passed until 1845.
Section 1 stipulated the goals for education in 1870. Today this
statement seems rather vague, but an examination of the 1870
debates throws some light on the intention of the writers. There
were five resolutions presented to the 1870 convention on this sub-
ject.1 The Committee on Education apparently incorporated ideas
from all of these resolutions into its section 1 , which read :
The General Assembly shall provide a thorough and efficient
system of free schools, whereby all minor children of this State
may receive a good common school education.
From remarks made during the debates there seems to have been
little controversy in the committee regarding section 1 . The schools
1 References to occurrences and conversations at the 1870 Illinois Constitu-
tional Convention are based on Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention of the State of Illinois, 1868-1870 (Springfield: E. L. Merritt and
Brother, 1870).
34
Formulating Educational Objectives 35
were to be thorough, efficient, free, and open to all. This section did
cause controversy at the full convention, however. A unanimous
motion by the members of the committee to strike the word "mi-
nor" as unnecessary met with opposition. Various delegates insisted
this word was important to insure that people over twenty-one years
of age would not receive education at state expense, but the motion
to strike the word passed by a vote of twenty to eighteen. Never-
theless, it was clear from the discussion that most delegates intended
only children to be educated under this provision. One delegate
said:
There are three different kinds of education, for only one of which
the state provides. ... It is not contemplated that an academic
education shall be taught in the common schools, or a collegiate
education. . . . The academic courses are calculated to prepare
one for some particular pursuit in life and so with the collegiate
course. Only the common school we propose to make free by gen-
eral taxation.
The separation of education into the three divisions of common
school, academic, and collegiate makes it clear that common school
education was to be education of only a rudimentary sort. When
someone remarked that the term was very vague, a delegate ex-
plained, "The standard of 'common school education' is liable to
undergo great changes, and its degree and limited character should
not be placed in a constitution." The term was defended, neverthe-
less, on the grounds that the people of the state understood it and
would know that they were not being taxed to provide for institu-
tions of higher learning. Therefore, by their wording in section 1,
the delegates to the 1870 convention intended that schools be main-
tained which were free and open to all persons under twenty-one
years of age, that only the rudiments of learning be taught, and that
the schools be thorough and efficient.
Although the term "common school education" was outdated in
1969, the question as to what constitutes its meaning had not caused
any difficulty, for the courts had been content to interpret it by
means of whatever curriculum requirements the legislature estab-
lished. Yet it is important to note that in 1879, m the case of
Richards v. Raymond (92 111. 612, 1879), the courts construed
36 A Fundamental Goal
the term to apply also to a high school education, something the
1870 delegates had specifically opposed. To them high school was
"academic" education and beyond the basics provided by the com-
mon schools.
The question of whether Illinois's school system is "thorough and
efficient" had been open to continuing controversy. There had been
a gradual trend in Illinois to consolidate and simplify school district
organization. These consolidations, brought about by local referen-
dum, were frequently challenged in court on the grounds that such
changes would render the schools less "thorough and efficient."
The courts usually refused to rule on such challenges, stating that
the "thorough and efficient" stipulation was a matter for legislative,
not judicial, determination.2
There had been little discussion of the wording "all children of
the state," which had been read to mean that the school systems
must operate uniformly throughout the state and that any particu-
lar school district cannot discriminate among its students. The re-
quirement that the schools be free had not caused difficulty except
on the subject of free textbooks. According to the interpretation in
Segar v. Board of Education (317 111. 418, 1925) schools were not
required to supply free textbooks; that ruling was to be the basis
for some controversy in the 1970 Committee on Education.
Provisions similar to section 1 of Article VIII are found in the
constitutions of thirty-one other states, many in much greater detail.
The Model State Constitution, although implying that an education
article is not necessary, provides a broad statement of goals:
The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of
a system of free public schools open to all children in the state
and shall establish, organize and support such other public insti-
tutions, including public institutions of higher learning, as may be
desirable.3
Because the 1870 Illinois section really mandated nothing and
granted no new powers to the General Assembly, it was considered
2 George C. Braden and Rubin G. Cohn, The Illinois Constitution: An
Annotated and Comparative Analysis (Urbana: Institute of Government and
Public Affairs, University of Illinois, 1969), p. 401. See also People v. Death-
erage, 401 111. 26 (1948).
3 National Municipal League, Model State Constitution (New York: Na-
tional Municipal League, 1941), p. 21.
Formulating Educational Objectives 37
merely hortatory language by most constitutional and educational
experts. On the other hand, since one of the main functions of a
constitution is to outline general policy, the section could have been
regarded as providing the educational goals toward which the state
should strive.
A New Emphasis on Education
It was the general feeling among educational experts, witnesses, and
committee members during the 1970 convention that section 1 of
the 1870 education article was inadequate to express the impor-
tance of education in today's world. Faith in education as the eradi-
cator of all evils is often found among both educators and laymen.
This seems to be especially true of those who deal with the poor and
underprivileged. A statement representative of this faith in educa-
tion was presented by the Educational Development Cooperative:
Although we obviously approach these topics with an "educa-
tional" bias, our conviction is that true quality education in
Illinois can help in solving other pressing state needs: unemploy-
ment, welfare, public health, air-water pollution, mental health,
minority group problems, and in many aspects of long range
planning.
Although this same faith in education had been exhibited by
Horace Mann in the 1830s and 1840s and by other educators and
laymen in the nineteenth century, the convention of 1870 had
apparently given low priority to education and had seen its function
as merely "to enable one to perform his duties as a good citizen."
In 1970 everyone agreed that a statement was needed that would
place a greater emphasis on the importance of education. How this
was to be done and what was to be said would be a source of much
controversy.
Seventeen member proposals on the objectives of education were
presented to the convention.4 Of these, six mentioned objectives as
part of a broader proposal whereas eleven dealt directly with ob-
jectives. The general intent of these proposals was that the state
4 Member Proposals 32, 72, 89, 90, 158, 167, 334, 347, 409, 434, 438, 439,
440, 441, 570. The text of these proposals is reproduced in Sixth Illinois Con-
stitutional Convention, Record of Proceedings, 1970, Vol. VII.
38 A Fundamental Goal
should provide a high quality education for all (some proposals
specified all children), regardless of race or religion, and that such
education should include higher educational institutions as well as
other institutions and services which might be desirable. Suggestions
were also made that free education be provided to those with physi-
cal and mental handicaps. The intent of these provisions taken in
general was quite broad: each child (or person) in the state was
to be guaranteed a better and longer education. There were vari-
ations among the proposals : some would educate adults as well as
children, some would provide a "high quality" rather than an
"adequate" education, some would provide a "common school edu-
cation" rather than one through the university level. These state-
ments, basically hortatory, gave little indication of the coming con-
troversy in the committee.
Almost all witnesses referred to the subject of educational objec-
tives. Many merely affirmed the need for high quality education
and then went on to other subjects. Few witnesses provided specific
proposals. Some organizations, such as the Illinois Association of
School Boards, recommended leaving section 1 as it was written in
1870, but questioning of these witnesses indicated that they would
not be opposed to strengthening the section. As with the member
proposals, there was little agreement as to the strength of the pro-
vision, length of schooling, or ages to be schooled, but neither did
there seem to be much cause for controversy.
A Divided Committee
Yet it was the topic of educational objectives that caused the most
dissension among the members of the Committee on Education at
the 1 969-1 970 convention. This was the subject that divided the
members into the Young Turks and the Old Guard, and it was the
committee's action upon this issue that caused the most public out-
cry. Elements of controversy existed, and could have reasonably
been anticipated, because of the background of the committee mem-
bers. The two black delegates, Patch and Pughsley, were obviously
unhappy with the extremely inadequate education being offered to
minority groups in the city of Chicago. Section 1 was their prime
concern, for they felt it was in this section that high quality educa-
Formulating Educational Objectives 39
tion and equal educational opportunity would be affirmed. The
lawyers on the committee, Kamin, Dove, and Mathias, were aware
of the hortatory nature of the section, and their professional train-
ing might logically have led them to seek a statement of goals which
was as concise and simple as possible. The educators, Parker, Bu-
ford, Bottino, and to some extent Fogal, might have been expected
to be more concerned with implementing specific educational goals.
Evans and Howard, who had much experience in the League of
Women Voters, might have opted to go along with the lawyers for
a simple statement and with the educators for an implementation of
certain specific proposals.
Thus, the lineup of forces for this discussion could have been
Patch and Pughsley versus the rest of the committee. If this had
been the case there would have been no controversy, since two dele-
gates would not have constituted enough for a minority report. In
the discussion of interaction of personalities, however, an analysis
based upon predictable positions is often not adequate; this was
true in the area of objectives as handled by the committee. The
array of forces became one black (Pughsley was ill), two lawyers,
one professor, and one League of Women Voters member versus
one lawyer, three educators, and one member of the League of
Women Voters. The basis of the division was obviously not back-
ground or exclusively professional training. Instead, the criteria
were age, friendship, and, most importantly, ideas as to how much
reform should be introduced into section 1 .
Educational objectives did not appear unduly controversial at
the inception of the discussions. The subject was taken up on Feb-
ruary 25 after much debate had already taken place on structure.
Discussion continued sporadically on March 3, 5, and 10; little
progress was made but little dissension encountered. It was during
this period that many of the younger members felt most discouraged
about their hopes for the final outcome of the article, for they real-
ized that the older members were not open to any large degree of
innovation.
On March 5 the subcommittee on objectives (Buford, Patch,
and Parker) presented its report:
The well being of the State and its people requires that public
40 A Fundamental Goal
education of high quality be provided and adequately supported
to the end that each person may be educated to the limit of his
ability.
To achieve this goal, the State shall establish and support by
law a system of free public schools.
The State shall also establish such public institutions of higher
learning and other educational services as are desirable.
The wording was accepted but not by a final vote, and Dr. Browne
was asked to begin to write the rationale that would accompany
the proposal on section i . Each member had also prepared a state-
ment of objectives for presentation. The proposals varied in length
from two lines by Dove to ten lines by Buford. Their content was
surprisingly similar: all mentioned other educational institutions
or institutions of higher learning, most mentioned providing a qual-
ity education, and almost all mentioned educating people or chil-
dren to the limits of their capacities.
On March i o Dr. Browne read what he had prepared, using the
subcommittee report and the various proposals from committee
members as a basis :
The well-being of the State and its people requires that public
education of high quality be provided and adequately supported
to the end that each person may be educated to the extent of his
ability.
To achieve this goal, the State shall establish and support by
law a system of free public schools and shall also establish such
public institutions of higher learning and other educational ser-
vices as are desirable.
The vote on acceptance of this language was seven to two in favor,
with Patch and Pughsley absent and Kamin and Dove voting no.
Since seven was a majority of the committee, it appeared this would
be the version of section i to be reported to the full convention.
After committee adjournment that day, however, Kamin, Dove,
and Howard discussed Dr. Browne's wording. Kamin and Dove
were particularly concerned over the use of the words "public edu-
cation" and the word "schools." They feared these terms would be
read as a limitation on the scope of the state board of education,
barring extension of its authority to colleges and universities. More-
over, they were afraid that the term "public education" might be
Formulating Educational Objectives 41
thought to strengthen the prohibition in section 3 of aid to non-
public schools, even if that section were left unchanged. On ac-
count of the terms "public education" and "free public schools,"
the courts might rule unconstitutional any programs, present or
future, which would in some way give aid or support to nonpublic
schools.
Howard was persuaded to join the other two delegates in their
opposition to Dr. Browne's wording ; the three wrote a new proposal
which was shown to Patch, Fogal, and Bottino at the plenary ses-
sion that day. When agreement among these six members was
achieved, they did not show the new wording to any additional
members of the committee because the six constituted a majority.
The following day the six members presented the new wording
to the committee, stating that an ad hoc committee meeting had
been held and the following formulated :
It shall be the paramount duty of the State to provide a quality
educational experience for all persons to the limits of their capac-
ities.
Toward this end, the State shall provide for a system of public
educational institutions and services.
The minutes of March 1 1 record that Kamin stated, in explaining
the new proposal, that there was little difference between it and the
proposal approved the previous day, but that his understanding of
the general feeling of the committee was that education should be
approached as a whole. Therefore, no specific reference to public
schools or to public education should be made which would in any
way narrow the scope of education.
Parker was the first to respond to the new language, arguing that
the section did not do what it should and that it omitted the word
"free." Mathias also objected to this omission. Though this change
was apparently made at Patch's suggestion,5 it was primarily Kamin
who defended it to the other members of the committee. He noted
that many aspects of public education (such as textbooks and gyms
and lockers) were not free and should not be implied to be so. In
addition, the sponsors of the new wording considered the word
5 According to Kamin, Patch, and Howard in interviews with the author,
March 11, 1970.
42 A Fundamental Goal
"public" to be better than the word "free" where higher education
and special services were concerned. Buford added his objections,
but when a vote was taken the ad hoc committee had the necessary
six votes for a majority. The remaining four members expressed
their intention to write a minority report.
Although only two of the younger members had voted against
Dr. Browne's wording, the other younger delegates had since been
persuaded a better section was possible; they thought by banding
together and including Bottino — who had agreed to their proposal
— they would have sufficient numerical strength to determine the
content of the majority report. The younger members originally
felt, because of remarks that had been made by the older members
in earlier informal committee discussions, that all would agree to the
new proposal. However, the older members were unable to agree;
they considered the statement too radical because it included the
words "the paramount" and omitted the word "free." In addition,
the older members objected to the way in which the matter had
been handled. The creation of a new proposal after committee ad-
journment had not previously occurred, and the committee had
always worked together or in recognized subcommittees. Also, there
appeared to exist on the part of the older members a certain amount
of distrust of the younger members, all of whom, except for How-
ard, were Democrats. This is shown most particularly by Parker's
remark, "Why does Mayor Daley want that language?"6
Fears about the radical nature of the section and the omission of
the word "free" caused Bottino to defect to the Old Guard side,
thus creating a five-to-five stalemate in the committee and prevent-
ing either majority or minority reports from being written. Dele-
gates on both sides realized that this matter, unlike the structural
problems involved with creation of a state board of education, could
not be passed on to the legislature. Because it involved broad policy
decisions, it had to be resolved at the convention. When the com-
mittee became stalemated the Young Turks despaired of ever seeing
their suggestions incorporated into the proposed article. Because of
these feelings of futility the Young Turks created the game of op-
posing forces in the committee, pitting their desire for large reforms
6 Interview with the author, March 1 1, 1970.
Formulating Educational Objectives 43
against the Old Guard's preference for more moderate change. The
game gave the Young Turks a sense of satisfaction from being on a
team and scheming against their opponents. The Old Guard also
developed a group consciousness and was hesitant to vote with any
members of the opposing team.
When informed by Patch that Pughsley was likely to return in
the near future, the Young Turks were sure they would gain the
majority. The game of opposing forces then became useful as a
means to maintain the factions until Pughsley's return. As men-
tioned in Chapter I, the Young Turks had an additional incentive
to delay: more sure of their solidarity than the Old Guard, they
felt that a stalemate would eventually lead to a breakdown of
unanimity among the older members. Team spirit was emphasized
on both sides, and the factions remained for the time being stead-
fast in their positions.
On March 18 a new subcommittee on objectives was formed of
delegates Buford, Parker, Dove, and Kamin. They attempted to
reach a consensus, but on March 20 reported that the factions were
still too divided to reach an agreement.
A Necessary Consensus
Developments both inside the committee and out were to change
the inflexible positions of the two groups. News soon reached the
committee about the public outcry over the omission of the word
"free" from the Young Turks' section. The public feared that citizens
would be forced to pay tuition for public school education unless they
were guaranteed free education by the constitution.
This omission was given publicity by the news media, who were
thirsting for information on Con-Con action. The most prominent
emphasis was provided by Tony Abel of WCIA-TV in Champaign,
a station that broadcasts to most of central and southern Illinois.
The following is Abel's script from the evening of March 1 3 :
The omission of the word "free" from the wording in the new
constitution's education article might well have been an oversight
rather than an overt gesture on the part of the Education Com-
mittee— but even if that were not so, the decision at this point
44 A Fundamental Goal
is subject to many reviews. The Education Committee is split into
two camps which might well be classified as a battle between the
Old Guard and the Young Turks. Unfortunately, Old Guard
committee chairman Paul Mathias of Bloomington found himself
numbered among the minority when the vote came in.
The Young Turks have no formal leadership, but one of their
more vocal members is Malcolm Kamin of Chicago's 12th district.
Also identified with this faction is downstater Franklin Dove of
Shelbyville, William Fogal of Pekin, Mrs. Betty Howard of St.
Charles, Sam Patch of Chicago and others.
Their main attempt was to rewrite the committee's proposal
so it would bind the state to public education as a "paramount"
obligation. But, in their ambition, that fateful word "free" was
also omitted, and the ire of so many was also raised.
If the Young Turks of the Education Committee do not over-
react to public criticism, the wording might yet be changed to
bring it more into line with public opinion.
No other committee at Con-Con is factionalized in such an
apparent manner as the Education Committee. While the battle
lines may be drawn on philosophical grounds, the borderlines of
the two camps are surprisingly coincidental with age groups —
lending some credence to observations that the skirmishes within
the committee are in reality a kind of mature generation gap.
As Abel foresaw, public reaction to the omission was strong. Peo-
ple sought out their delegates and expressed their outrage, demand-
ing that something be done. Letters of protest were written to
the Committee on Education — forty-seven to Chairman Mathias
alone — and most of the delegates received telegrams and telephone
calls.
This public disapproval was to aid the delegates in reaching
consensus, but another factor also became important. All members
gradually became aware that a unanimous committee report would
make the position of the group stronger when the report was pre-
sented to the full convention, thus increasing the likelihood that
committee recommendations would be passed with little or no
change. This realization eventually caused the members to attempt
seriously to reach a consensus. With the outcry over the omission
of "free," the Young Turks realized the necessity of quieting public
opinion by reinserting the word into their proposal. They hoped
Formulating Educational Objectives 45
that doing so would make the Old Guard more flexible in its posi-
tion and that a compromise between the groups would be possible.
In late March Kamin proposed a new wording :
The State shall provide for a system of universities, colleges,
libraries, free common schools, and other such institutions of
learning as may be deemed necessary.
The Old Guard was also moving closer to agreement, as is evi-
denced by this proposal from Buf ord :
It shall be a paramount duty of the State to provide public
education of high quality to the end that all persons can be edu-
cated to the limit of their capacities.
Toward this end the State shall provide for a system of free
public schools through the secondary level.
It shall also provide for public institutions of higher learning
and other educational services which may or may not be free.
On April 7 the committee was still unable to reach a consensus
on several very similarly worded proposals. Distrust between the
factions was high. The compromise wording presented by the
Young Turks in March was rejected by the Old Guard. Then sud-
denly the Young Turk faction broke apart. Delegates Howard and
Fogal, feeling that a unanimous report would not be possible, tiring
of the endless debate, and stating that Buford's wording was at least
acceptable, voted for that wording on April 7. Their action gave
the Old Guard a seven-to-three majority.
All was to be changed the following day. Kamin and Dove were
concerned that the words "public education" in Buford's proposal
might lead by court interpretation to the prohibition of aid to non-
public schools. In addition, Kamin said he feared the words "also
could be used to limit the state's entry into other private areas such
as support of the arts." After convincing Howard and Fogal of
these possibilities, the Young Turks rewrote their proposed section.
The words were mainly the work of Kamin, but the authorship
purported to be that of Fogal, the quietest member of the young
group and the one most trusted by the Old Guard.
On the morning of April 8 Fogal asked to be heard. He expressed
great dismay over the divisiveness among the committee members
46 A Fundamental Goal
and reminded them of the task ahead and of the importance of
education. His presentation deeply moved the other members of the
committee, and his new proposal met with immediate acceptance:
The paramount goal of the people of the State shall be the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capacities.
To achieve this goal, it shall be the duty of the State to provide
for an efficient system of high quality public educational institu-
tions and services.
Education in the public schools at the primary and secondary
levels shall be free. There shall be such other free education as
the General Assembly may provide.
Minor revisions caused the last paragraph eventually to read:
"Education in the public schools through the secondary level shall
be free. There may be such other free education as the General
Assembly provides."
Kamin and Patch asked to be recorded as agreeing to the above
language "with reservations." In fact, this was part of the plan of
the Young Turks to make the wording seem less a group effort and
to make the situation more believable to the Old Guard. The atmo-
sphere of togetherness created by this consensus permitted the reso-
lution of most of the other issues before the committee on the same
day.
Despite the realization of the benefits to be gained by consensus,
the Young Turks viewed the compromise in terms of the game they
had created; the agreement, they felt, had been attained on their
terms, through Fogal's presentation which duped the opposite side.
The consensus was to them, therefore, not a compromise but a
victory. Their team won ; the opponent was fooled ; and the goal of
extending the scope of education was accomplished. It is unlikely,
however, that such a victory would have been possible had the
Young Turks refused to change their position on the word "free."
The change allowed the Old Guard to reconsider the wording of
the Young Turks and to yield somewhat on their own position.
The final compromise, therefore, resulted from the division of
the committee into factions, the need to appease the public, the
desire to create a unanimous committee proposal, and Fogal's inter-
mediary efforts. If Fogal had not voted for Buford's language on
Formulating Educational Objectives 47
April 7, it is unlikely the Old Guard would have voted for the new
wording on April 8; it was Fogal's vote in favor of their proposal
that caused the Old Guard to trust him. That trust, combined with
Fogal's moving presentation and the committee's desire to write a
unanimous report, was enough to lead the Old Guard to accept
language they previously might have rejected.
The controversy over the degree of reform to be introduced into
section 1 of the proposed education article was settled eventually
by a compromise. The committee provided a strongly worded sec-
tion guaranteeing free education at the elementary and secondary
levels. The section contained the words "the paramount" (rather
than "a paramount," upon which the Old Guard had been insist-
ing) and on the whole extended the scope of education.7 Develop-
ment of the section had been incremental — a compromise between
little change and radical innovation.
7 That the section on objectives in the 1970 education article is being used
to help extend the scope of education in Illinois is indicated by the following
report from the Advisory Commission on Financing the Arts in Illinois:
The framers of the new Constitution defined education broadly to include
"expansion beyond the traditional public school programs" and to reach
"all persons . . . adults too ... to provide each person an opportunity to
progress to the limit of his ability." Moreover, the framers expressly sug-
gested that the educational enterprise reaches to "individuals . . . whose
cultural levels are lifted."
Art has always been an element of sound education But the new Con-
stitution is an expression of the State's obligation to support the arts
beyond their inclusion in formal educational programs, to provide cultural
opportunities to "all persons to the limits of their capacities."
Illinois, Advisory Commission on Financing the Arts in Illinois, Report (Chi-
cago, 1971), p. 4.
IV
Providing for Higher Education
The Illinois Constitution of 1870 referred to higher education only
in passing. Section 3 forbade payment of public funds to any college
or university controlled by any church or sectarian denomination,
but no other specific reference was made. Two resolutions regarding
the establishment of a state university were presented to the dele-
gates of the 1870 convention, but the Education Committee took
no action on them. The attitude expressed in the 1870 debates
toward institutions of higher learning was somewhat hostile.
More attention was given to the subject by the 1920 constitu-
tional convention, where this section was included in the proposed
constitution :
"The general assembly shall make adequate provision for the
maintenance and development of the University of Illinois and
the system of state normal schools."
That constitution failed to be ratified by the voters, however, so by
1969 there were still no specific constitutional provisions in Illinois
for education beyond the secondary level.
Thirteen member proposals presented to the 1 969-1 970 conven-
tion specifically addressed the subject of higher education. Almost
half closely resembled Member Proposal 434 :
The General Assembly shall provide by law for a state-wide
system of free public schools sufficient for the education of, and
open to, all children of school age and shall provide for such
48
Providing for Higher Education 49
other public educational institutions as may be desirable for the
intellectual, cultural and occupational development of the people
of this State.
Three others were more strongly worded: Member Proposal 438
asked for the inclusion of a provision "guaranteeing the right of
free quality education for all from pre-school through college."
Member Proposal 439 suggested that the General Assembly provide
for "the establishment and support of such other public educational
services and institutions necessary for the fullest development of the
intellectual, cultural and occupational potential of the people. It
shall include all individuals from infancy through adulthood."
Member Proposal 570 stated:
It is the policy of Illinois that no one will be denied the oppor-
tunity for an education beyond the secondary level solely because
of financial need or other factors unrelated to ability.
One proposal, 334 from Delegate Mathias, was concerned solely
with the subject of higher education :
The General Assembly shall establish and support such public
institutions of higher learning as may be desirable.
These proposals all recognized the necessity for the state to make
higher educational opportunities widely available.
The remaining proposals dealt with miscellaneous problems:
Member Proposal 53 would have established a state board of edu-
cation to govern education through the level of junior colleges and
a board of higher education with jurisdiction over four-year colleges
and graduate schools; Member Proposal 158 asked for the election
of boards of trustees of state supported institutions of higher learn-
ing; Member Proposal 55 provided for at least one student member
on the governing and coordinating bodies of state colleges and
universities.
Most witnesses, other than those connected with higher educa-
tion, did not speak directly on the subject of education beyond the
secondary level. Of those who did, almost all gave testimony much
like the recommendation from the Illinois Association of School
Administrators :
The Legislature shall provide only for the support and main-
50
A Fundamental Goal
tenance of a system of free public schools guaranteeing equal
educational opportunity and open to all children in the state and
shall establish, organize, and support such other public educa-
tional institutions, including public institutions of higher learning,
as may be desirable.
In 1870 the delegates had opposed providing higher education
at public expense. By 1970 the need for longer educational prepar-
ation to live and work in today's world was apparent. Higher edu-
cation was no longer regarded as a luxury by the general public, but
a somewhat different attitude was found among the members of
the Committee on Education. Although they recognized the place
and need for higher education, the majority of the committee,
especially the educators, felt this aspect of education had received
undue attention and support at the expense of elementary and sec-
ondary education. Four members so indicated in response to a
questionnaire :
Bottino : Greatest lobby in Illinois — receives financial support
out of proportion to that of elementary-secondary schools.
Buford : I favored a single board of education for the state which
in my judgment could give higher education the place it deserves
in relationship to the total program of education.
[Responses elsewhere in Buford's questionnaire make it clear that
higher education, in his estimation, "deserved" a lower priority in
relationship to the total educational program.]
Dove: I developed a distaste and distrust for those apparently in
command of higher education. This included legislators as well
as administrators. I was amazed by the complexity of the admin-
istrative structure which appeared to me to be developed only for
the purpose of protecting their special interest. ... I believe that a
State Board of Education if properly created by the legislature
will destroy their Sacred Cow.
Howard: I feel that higher education has received a dispropor-
tionate amount of state finance.
Patch: The Board of Higher Education has too much influence
and higher education has gotten a disproportionate share and has
favored a certain class of people.
This hostile attitude does much to explain the array of forces for
Providing for Higher Education 5 1
and against the concept of a superboard to govern all education.
In the first vote on February 18, Buford, Dove, Fogal, Kamin,
Howard, and Patch favored a superboard. Bottino, although some-
what antagonistic toward higher education, apparently thought the
levels of education were sufficiently different to warrant two boards,
as did delegate Parker. The Young Turks, especially, were con-
cerned that education be treated as a whole, and expressed their
views by supporting one board over all educational levels.
Additional hostility toward higher education was inadvertently
created by Chairman Mathias. Because he was thought to have
vested interests in higher education, any suggestion from him on
education beyond the secondary level was met with distrust.
Mathias — recognizing this hostility and upset by the results of the
vote on the superboard — had gone to the Ad Hoc Advisory Com-
mittee on Con-Con of the Board of Higher Education, seeking
support of his own Member Proposal 334. The Advisory Commit-
tee, led by Professor Gove and composed of representatives of the
various higher education systems in Illinois, in turn went to the
Board of Higher Education. The Board agreed to send represen-
tatives to the Committee on Education to speak in favor of the
Mathias proposal. Their appearance on March 4, however, prob-
ably irritated rather than persuaded members of the committee;
surprised by this unanticipated deluge of higher education spokes-
men, they felt pressured by the chairman and became even more
wary of the issue.
Among the witnesses was Dr. David Dodds Henry, president of
the University of Illinois. Henry's appearance indicated that people
in higher education deemed this issue very important to their inter-
ests. In fact, the University of Illinois had sent an observer to the
convention to watch for any developments which might affect
education beyond the secondary level. Robert Bentz, assistant to
University vice-president Eldon Johnson, did not make himself con-
spicuous, and his presence and the reasons for it were unknown to
most committee members as well as to most other delegates.
The witnesses spoke on two issues. They expressed their adamant
opposition to the concept of a superboard, stating that higher edu-
cation was enough different from elementary and secondary educa-
tion to be governed by a separate board. Representatives of the
52 A Fundamental Goal
Board of Higher Education explained the need for the inclusion in
the new constitution of Mathias's Member Proposal 334:
The General Assembly shall establish and support such public
institutions of higher learning as may be desirable.
The arguments of these witnesses were apparently persuasive
enough to change slightly the positions of the committee members.
A vote taken that same day showed five in favor of an overall board,
four against, and one voting present. Kamin, who had previously
voted in favor of a superboard, voted present. He had become con-
cerned that the representatives of higher education would work to
defeat the whole education article if it provided for a superboard.
In regard to the jurisdiction of the state board, the vote on Feb-
ruary 18 had indicated no one was willing to leave that decision to
the General Assembly. On March 4, however, Kamin, Evans,
Mathias, and Bottino voted for just that option. As discussed in
Chapter III, the issue of jurisdiction became entangled with the
issue of educational objectives, which divided the committee into
factions and created a great deal of ill will. It appears that because
of the impending wrangle over the wording of educational objec-
tives, the jurisdiction of the state board of education suddenly be-
came a minor issue. The vote on March 5 was unanimous to leave
the question to the legislature.
No one in committee again mentioned placing a specific refer-
ence to higher education in the constitution. Apparently too much
hostility had been engendered, and Chairman Mathias recognized
it. The Board of Higher Education also sensed the feelings of many
members of the Committee on Education and decided not to ask
that anything be included on this subject, fearing that any provision
might be disadvantageous for higher education. In addition, they
were concerned that the spring 1970 campus unrest and protests
over the war in Vietnam might have caused a generally unfavor-
able attitude towards colleges and universities.
The old conflict over the amount of change in the education
article reappeared during the discussion of higher education, al-
though with different alignments. One side, led by Mathias, felt
that constitutional recognition of higher education was necessary
and attempted to have Member Proposal 334 included in the arti-
Providing for Higher Education 53
cle. The other side feared that any change might give increased
attention and support to higher education, so they opted for the
status quo — no specific mention in the constitution. In the end,
both sides were placated. Higher education was not specifically
mentioned, but section 1 required the state "to provide for an effi-
cient system of high quality public educational institutions and
services." Even Mathias was pleased with this statement. In a letter
written on September 28, 1 97 1 , he stated :
It seems to me that the reference to "high quality public educa-
tional institutions" does include the colleges and universities. ... I
do not feel that detailed provisions with reference to higher edu-
cation were necessary.1
For the committee one of the most fortunate aspects of the debate
over higher education was that it created a new working relation-
ship among the members. Though there was hostility, the realign-
ment of forces put the Old Guard- Young Turk split into more
reasonable perspective, and the committee saw that the two groups
were not totally opposed to each other on all issues. The feeling of
suspicion toward higher education among members of both groups
helped provide a basis for resolution of the fight over the objectives
of education.
1 Letter from Paul Mathias to the author, dated September 28, 1971.
Aid to Nonpublic Schools:
Caution in the Face of Controversy
One of the most potentially controversial parts of the 1870 consti-
tution was section 3 of the education article, Public Funds for Sec-
tarian Purposes Forbidden :
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, town-
ship, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make
any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything
in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or
sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other
literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sec-
tarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation
of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the
State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any
sectarian purpose.
The issue was greatly feared by the delegates to the 1969-70
constitutional convention, in large part because of its impact on an
attempt at constitutional revision in New York. There, the proposed
constitution of 1967 replaced a ban on aid to nonpublic schools with
the words of the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. In
the opinion of many experts, the controversy that arose over that
substitution was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the entire
constitution.
The proponents and opponents of aid to nonpublic schools in Illi-
54
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 55
nois were many and vocal. In September 1969 there were 2,773,029
students attending elementary and secondary schools in Illinois. Of
these, 448,513, or approximately 20 percent of the students, at-
tended nonpublic schools, most of which were run by the Catholic
Church.1 Many of these schools were being forced to close, purport-
edly because of lack of money and rising costs. According to pro-
ponents of aid, Catholic parents who had willingly supported
parochial schools over the years could no longer keep up with rising
tuition costs and increasing taxes. They were being forced to pay a
"double taxation" — to support their own schools and to pay taxes
for the support of public schools. ( In Illinois over half of all prop-
erty taxes went to the public schools, as did about half of the sales
tax and a large part of the new income tax.) Those favoring aid
also pointed out the increased cost to the public schools if nonpublic
schools were to be forced to close. A publication of the Illinois
Catholic Conference explained :
If these 450,000 pupils were enrolled in public schools, the cost
to taxpayers would be at least $210,600,000 based on the present
minimum expenditure of $520.00 required for every pupil in
average daily attendance. . . . The cost to taxpayers could be as
much as $324,000,000 based on the Statewide average expenditure
of approximately $800.00 per public school pupil in average daily
attendance.2
The proponents of aid pointed out the dilemma faced by Catholic
parents. If they sent their children to parochial schools they had to
bear the increasingly burdensome double taxation. This they could
avoid only by public school education which taught a kind of secu-
lar humanism to which they did not want their children exposed.
The opponents of aid based their opposition on a variety of rea-
sons : the scarcity of funds available to the public schools, the neces-
sity for maintaining the separation of church and state, the "hidden
1 The accuracy of these figures, which are from the office of the Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction of Illinois, has been questioned; however, they
are the ones which the committee used. For a discussion of accurate figures, see
Donald A. Erickson, Crisis in Illinois Nonpublic Schools (Springfield: State of
Illinois, 1971), pp. A4-A8.
2 Facts and Figures About Nonpublic Schools in Illinois (Chicago, 1970),
p. 2.
56 A Fundamental Goal
wealth" of the Catholic Church, the concept of private education
as a privilege and not a right, and the divisiveness in society which
might result from such aid.
Historical Background
Since this was the most controversial issue with which the committee
dealt, a more detailed examination of its background is warranted.
The early history of Illinois education contains many examples of
the intermingling of religion, education, and the state. Although
the legislature was reluctant to charter specifically denominational
colleges, many academies, the most popular form of secondary
school from 1825 to 1850, were granted charters. The charters
usually stated that no religious discrimination was to be allowed,
but these schools were founded and staffed by ministers of the vari-
ous faiths, and the competition between the academies often re-
flected bitter sectarian rivalries.3 The academies were not secular in
the modern sense, for it was often stipulated that the Bible must be
taught and the Christian religion encouraged. Indeed, as many
settlers in Illinois came from older states of the east, they were, in
the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, merely following the tradi-
tion that "education of children was primarily study of the Word
and the ways of God."4 To the founders of these institutions and
apparently also to the members of the General Assembly, nonsec-
tarianism meant Protestant Christianity, which did not prohibit
Bible reading or prayers. It was this interpretation of the meaning
of nonsectarianism which was to make it difficult for the Catholics
to accept the developing public school system.
During these controversies over religion in the public schools, the
Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1870 was called. Two topics
with which the convention was concerned were aid to nonpublic
schools and Bible reading in public schools. These two issues were
inextricably linked. Many citizens hoped that the public schools
would Americanize the Catholic immigrant. Therefore, Protestant
3 Daniel W. Kucera, Church-State Relationships in Education in Illinois
(Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), p. 29.
4 Dissenting in Illinois ex rel. McCullom v. Board of Education, 333 U. S.
203 (1948), p. 213.
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 57
values had to be stressed in public schools, and parochial schools
were not to be aided or encouraged. Catholic schools were seen as
a foreign influence, for in addition to having an alien religious at-
mosphere, they were usually conducted in the native language of
the immigrant.5 Lyman Beecher, one of the most influential Protes-
tant clergymen of the period, stated :
Let the Catholics mingle with us as Americans, and come with
their children under the full action of our common schools and
republican institutions, and the various powers of assimilation,
and we are prepared cheerfully to abide the consequences.6
And again :
Can Jesuits and nuns, educated in Europe, and sustained by
patronage of Catholic powers in arduous conflict for the destruc-
tion of liberty be safely trusted to form the mind and opinions
of the young hopes of this nation? Is it not treason to commit the
formation of republican children to such influences?7
Catholic criticism of sectarianism in public schools was looked upon
as "a veritable threat or peril to the very existence of the public
school, the sine qua non for the continuing stability of the American
social order."8
The ban on aid to nonpublic schools which emerged from the
1870 convention as section 3 of Article VIII is especially significant
in that it was the first really "strict" constitutional prohibition on
this subject written by any state.9 The debates show that in estab-
5 J. A. Burns, The Growth and Development of the Catholic School System
in the United States (New York: Benziger Brothers, 191 2), pp. 299-336. In
1906 the membership of Catholic parishes speaking foreign languages was as
follows: German, 1,519,978; Italian, 826,023; French, 1,031,530; Polish,
736,150; Slovak, 78,353; Portuguese, 48,227; Hungarian, 26,472.
6 Lyman Beecher, A Plea for the West (Cincinnati: Truman & Smith, 1835),
p. 60.
7 Ibid., p. 105.
8 Peter DeBoer, "A History of Early Compulsory School Attendance Legis-
lation in the State of Illinois" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1968),
pp. 526-27.
9 For present purposes a strict ban is denned as one which (a) specifically
precludes "direct or indirect benefits," (b) forbids aid for "any sectarian pur-
pose," (c) forbids use of not only the common school fund but any "public
money, land, appropriation, gift or grant of any kind," and (d) states every-
thing in considerable detail. A loose ban is characterized as one which (a) is
58 A Fundamental Goal
lishing this provision the delegates apparently were not responding
to any specific situation in Illinois, but rather to a fear as to possible
future difficulties :
It is true that up to this time we have suffered little inconvenience
from the want of such a provision. But as Sects grow up in this
state, unless we have some check, the time is not far distant when
we will find them pressing upon the Legislature, and so managing
the school funds as to make them subservient to building up their
peculiar religious opinions.
Statements were made about the situation in New York, where
Catholics had attempted to gain a share of the public school funds,
and it was pointed out that this must not be allowed to happen in
Illinois. Two significant amendments were introduced, one of which
would have allowed some aid to nonpublic schools and the other
of which would have reimbursed parents who could not in good
conscience send their children to the public schools; both amend-
ments were soundly defeated.
Important to note is the lack of opposition among the delegates
to the final provision. Most of the debate centered on how the
ban should be worded, not whether it should be included. Signifi-
cant also is the fact that there were no Catholics among the dele-
gates to the 1870 convention, and it is interesting to speculate on
whether the provision would have been different had Catholics
been represented.
The 1870 debate on aid to nonpublic schools was notable for its
lack of name calling and emotion. The delegates were careful to
point out that they held no animosity for Catholics or for the Catho-
lic Church. Very different, however, was the debate on the issue of
Bible reading in the public schools. The Committee on Education
very short and nondetailed, or (b) mentions only aid from the common school
fund or (c) prohibits aid to sectarian schools only, rather than for "any sec-
tarian purpose," or (d) does not explicitly forbid indirect as well as direct
benefits, or (e) exhibits more than one of these characteristics.
In terms of these criteria, thirty-one states had loose bans as of the writing
of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, thirteen had strict bans, four had references
that fell somewhere between loose and strict, and two had no mention of aid
to nonpublic schools at all. Jane Galloway Buresh, "Educational Issues at the
1 969-1 970 Illinois State Constitutional Convention" (Ph.D. diss., University
of Chicago, 1972), p. 136.
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 59
included no mention of the subject in its report, but the following
proposal was offered from the floor :
The General Assembly shall pass such laws as will effectually
prevent school officers, or any person or persons having control of
the common schools of the State, from excluding the Bible from
said schools.
Many petitions had been presented to the delegates from individ-
uals and organizations desirous of Bible reading in the public schools.
The debate centered around Catholic-Protestant differences, since
the main difficulty was the Catholics' objection to the King James
version of the Bible. Nativist arguments and name calling were
rampant. A Mr. Bayne declared :
Europe is pouring her population upon us by the thousands every
year. . . . This vast influx of population know but little about the
fundamental principle either of civil government or Christianity.
With that amount of ignorance and superstition coming in upon
us, I say it is well for every American freeman to look well to the
principle upon which civil government rests.
A Mr. Gamble concurred and stated :
Said a Romish priest, when commenting upon the losses of the
Romish church in Italy: "We can afford to let the rags of Italy
go into the hands of Garibaldi, when we are taking possession of
the United States." ... At a meeting of Roman Catholics held in
New York last year . . . one of the speakers, exulting over what
had been gained by them through appropriations from the New
York Legislature said, "this is the little finger, and we must pre-
serve it until we get the whole hand."
Though there were no Catholic delegates, many non-Catholics
disavowed the proposal, saying it was a violation of the rights of
conscience. One said :
Under a republican government we have no right to lord it over
the consciences of others. The Catholics and Hebrews have, on
the question of the Bible, their own convictions, and even if we
believe these convictions to be less enlightened than our own, we
must admit that the possessors of them are equally sincere.
60 A Fundamental Goal
After lengthy and heated debate, it was finally decided to omit the
question of Bible reading from the constitution so as not to jeopar-
dize its acceptance by the voters.
Although the inclusion of the ban on aid to nonpublic schools
would seem almost exclusively a reaction to the New York situation,
deeper investigation shows otherwise. The denial by the delegates of
any antagonism toward the Catholic Church was undercut by the
highly emotional debate surrounding the issue of Bible reading in
the public schools.
These emotional, anti-Catholic feelings were not limited to Illi-
nois; they intruded even on the national level. In an address in
1875 President Ulysses S. Grant stated:
Encourage free schools and resolve that not one dollar appropri-
ated for their support shall be appropriated to the support of
any sectarian schools. . . . Leave the matter of religion to the
family altar, the church, and the private schools supported en-
tirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever
separate.10
In his annual message to Congress in December 1874, Grant
called for a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting ex-
penditure of public funds for direct or indirect aid to any religious
sects. Such an amendment was sponsored by James C. Blaine, the
Republican leader of the House of Representatives :
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money
raised for the support of public schools, or derived from any pub-
lic fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever
be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so
raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or
denominations.11
This amendment passed the House by a vote of one hundred eighty
to seven (ninety-eight not voting) but failed to receive the necessary
two-thirds vote in the Senate. Between 1870 and 1888 eleven sep-
arate attempts had been made to secure an amendment prohibiting
10 Quoted in John H. Lauback, School Prayers — Congress, the Courts and
the Public (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1969), pp. 29-30.
11 Quoted in ibid., p. 30.
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 61
aid to sectarian schools. The Blaine Amendment of 1876, however,
was the only one to pass at least one house of Congress.
Was the debate over aid to nonpublic schools limited at the time
to a handful of states, or was Illinois just one among many in
which dissension was encountered? When constitutional provisions
prohibiting aid to nonpublic schools are categorized as nonexistent,
loose, medium, or strict, it becomes evident that all those termed
strict were written after the Illinois ban.12 Four states duplicated
the Illinois provision almost exactly (Colorado, 1876; Idaho, 1899;
Missouri, 1875; and Montana, 1889). Except for Illinois, all con-
stitutional bans classified as strict were written at about the same
time — during or soon after the Blaine Amendment controversy of
1 875-1 876. Many states adopted wording similar to that amend-
ment. Three states had enacted some sort of ban in the 1 840s, eight
between 1850 and i860, six from 1860-70, ten from 1870-80,
seven from 1880-90, three from 1890- 1900, and five more by
1918.
The issue, apparently much aggravated by the attempt of Catho-
lics in New York to secure a portion of the public school funds and
given national attention by the Blaine Amendment of 1876, finally
began to recede during the 1920s; by that time all states but Mary-
land and Vermont had some sort of prohibition of aid to nonpublic
schools. In the early 1920s Oregon tried to outlaw nonpublic schools
altogether. The right of these schools to exist was then affirmed by
the United States Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268
U.S. 510, 1925).
The apparent lack of strictness in some constitutional provisions
of the times may have been due to the desire for constitutional
purity, or a feeling that one concise statement was sufficient to ac-
complish the purpose. All forty-six bans were written during a pe-
riod of high anti-Catholic feeling (1 840-1 920). Catholic buildings
could not be insured, unless constructed of non-flammable mater-
ials, because of the high risk of their being burned down.13 The
blatantly anti-Catholic Know Nothing party captured five state
legislatures in 1855. Nativism was widely popular during the forties
12 See footnote 8, supra.
13 Anson Phelps Stokes and Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United
States (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 229.
62 A Fundamental Goal
and fifties. The "songster" of the American Republican Party,
founded in 1 843, reflects the spirit of the time :
Then strike up "Hail Columbia!" boys, our free and happy land,
We'll startle knavish partisans and break the Jesuit's band.
We'll snap the reins, spurn party chains and priestly politics,
We swear it by our father's [sic] graves — our sires of Seventy-
six.14
Since the 1920s various constitutional conventions and amend-
ments have dealt with aid to nonpublic schools. The proposed Illi-
nois Constitution of 1922 omitted the ban on aid completely. Alaska
and Hawaii, writing constitutions in the 1950s, did not include strict
bans; Alaska's delegates specifically prohibited only "direct" aid.
In 1947 New Jersey completely removed her prohibition of aid to
nonpublic schools. In 1968 Florida significantly weakened her 1885
ban. Maryland did not attempt to insert such a restriction into her
constitution during her recent convention. Rhode Island left her
bans as originally written.
The controversy surrounding the subject of aid to nonpublic
schools, however, was not dead when the Sixth Illinois Constitu-
tional Convention convened. The conflict engendered by New
York's attempt to reword its ban was discussed at the outset of this
chapter. Nor have feelings on the subject entirely cooled since Illi-
nois's convention. As recently as November 1970, the issue was
again brought to public attention when Michigan voters adopted
an amendment to their constitution which was much more strongly
worded than their original section. That amendment specifically
barred the state from providing transportation for children in non-
public schools and apparently outlawed most other auxiliary ser-
vices, including shared time.15
14 Cited in ibid., p. 233.
15 However, in a decision on March 31, 197 1 (Traverse City School District
v. Attorney General, 384 Mich. 390, 185 N.W. 2d 9), the Michigan Supreme
Court struck down the following clause as unconstitutional: "No payment,
credit, tax benefit, exemption or deduction, tuition, voucher, subsidy, grant or
loan of public moneys or property shall be provided, directly or indirectly, to
support the attendance of any student or employment of any person at any
such non-public school or at any location or institution where instruction is
offered in whole or in part to such non-public school students." Consequently,
according to the interpretation of Prof. Donald Erickson of the University of
Chicago, the language of the amendment is misleading, for the courts have
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 63
It is obvious that prejudice against Catholics was one of the main
reasons for the creation of the constitutional bans on aid to non-
public schools in various states. Although financial reasons have
since been given for retaining or strengthening these prohibitions,
the emotion surrounding the issue when it has arisen could lead one
to wonder whether the real reasons were being stated.
Hearing Out the Opposing Sides
Eleven member proposals on aid to nonpublic schools were pre-
sented to the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention. Of these,
four could be termed against aid while seven could be categorized
as for aid to nonpublic schools. Of those against, Member Proposal
204 recommended retention of section 3 of Article VIII and Pro-
posals 53, 90, and 158 suggested a rewording of the existing section
(for instance, Member Proposal 90 recommended the sentence,
"No public funds shall be used for sectarian education."). Of the
seven proposals favoring aid, Numbers 101, 152, 192, and 544
asked for complete repeal of the existing section. Member Proposal
91 suggested allowing a tax credit or deduction for the parents of
children in nonpublic schools. Member Proposal 253 recommended
that a sentence be added to the 1870 section that such section does
not preclude any form of aid to education that is permissible under
the United States Constitution. Member Proposal 285 asked that
nonpublic schools or the parents of children attending such schools
be eligible for reimbursement for the value of nonreligious education.
More witnesses spoke specifically on the subject of aid to non-
public schools than on any other issue before the Committee on
Education and, very likely, than on any other issue before the
convention. Almost 75 percent of those people testifying during
public hearings in Wheaton and Chicago spoke on aid to non-
public schools. Two separate meetings were held with the Bill of
Rights Committee to hear experts on both sides of the question. It
was found that most educational organizations and experts who
held that shared time is clearly valid on public premises and valid in some
instances on nonpublic school premises as well. Erickson and George F. Madaus,
"The Michigan Story: The Effects of Extending and Withdrawing Parochiaid,"
in United States, President's Commission on School Finance, Issues of Aid to
Nonpublic Schools (Washington, D.C., 197 1 ) , p. 33.
64 A Fundamental Goal
testified before either the Education Committee alone or the joint
committees were opposed to any form of aid. Such groups included
the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Congress of Parents
and Teachers, the Superintendents Round Table of Northern Illi-
nois, the Citizens Schools Committee, the Illinois Association of
School Administrators, the Independent Voters of Illinois, and the
Illinois State Chamber of Commerce.
There were, however, some surprises. Both the incumbent state
superintendent of public instruction, Ray Page, and the Democratic
candidate for that office, Dr. Michael Bakalis, indicated support
for aid to nonpublic schools, as did Chicago Superintendent of
Schools James Redmond and the Welfare Council of Metropoli-
tan Chicago. Two other influential organizations, the League of
Women Voters and the Illinois Federation of Teachers, chose to
take no position on the issue.
In total, forty-one witnesses testified before the Committee on Ed-
ucation against aid to nonpublic schools and thirty-five witnesses
spoke in favor of aid. Most witnesses on both sides were representa-
tives of religious groups. The majority of Catholics spoke in favor of
aid, although there were two exceptions who felt the church had
enough money to support its own schools. Almost all representatives
of Protestant groups opposed aid. A notable exception was Thomas
Hubbard, of the Presbyterian Settlement House on the western side
of Chicago, who spoke in support of the concept, saying that if
private schools were to close, older neighborhoods would lose their
stability since many residents would leave. The Christian Action
Ministry also favored aid. Among the non-Catholic groups opposed
to aid were the Metropolitan Chicago Baptist Association, the Illi-
nois Council of Churches, the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago,
the Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A., representatives of the Third
Unitarian Church of Chicago, and a representative of the Seventh
Day Adventist Church.
Two legal experts spoke to the committee on the subject of aid
to nonpublic schools. Jordan Jay Hillman, professor of law at
Northwestern University, asked for the retention of Article VIII,
section 3, because he feared any change in the section might result
in the defeat of the proposed constitution by the voters. It was Hill-
man's opinion that the Illinois ban on aid to nonpublic schools
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 65
was less restrictive than the federal First Amendment. Various court
decisions made under the Illinois prohibition, such as Dunn v. Chi-
cago Industrial School for Girls (280 111. 613, 1 g 1 7 ) , permitted the
state to pay to sectarian institutions at least part of the cost of caring
for dependent children committed to them by the state. Prof. Philip
B. Kurland of the University of Chicago Law School similarly in-
dicated that the language of section 3 was probably no more re-
strictive than the federal language and would yield the same
substantive results. Although Kurland made no recommendation on
the committee's action regarding section 3, the members used his
testimony as the basis for the rationale that accompanied their pro-
posal to retain the section.
By far the two most vociferous groups testifying on the issue were
Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, which opposed aid, and Citizens for Educational Free-
dom, which favored aid. These two groups had also been involved
in the controversy over aid to nonpublic schools in New York in
1967, and although by the time of the Illinois convention they had
somewhat tempered their remarks, they still issued misinformation
on the subject. For example, in a bulletin Protestants and Other
Americans United stated :
This one church is worth at least 80 billion dollars, and has an
annual income of at least thirteen billion. One order, the Jesuits,
owns the Bank of America, has a controlling interest in the Phil-
lips Petroleum Company, and is one of the largest stockholders in
the Republic and National Steel companies. Also they are among
the most important owners of the four greatest aircraft manufac-
turing companies in the United States — Boeing, Lockheed,
Douglas and Curtiss-Wright. (Send for books and documents on
this.)16
Fortunately, most of the testimony presented on the issue was not
of this nature. In general the arguments, both pro and con, fell into
five categories : the wall of separation, the child benefit theory, the
public function of nonpublic schools, the integrative versus divisive
effect, and financial considerations.
16 Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church
and State, Before Jeopardizing the Future (Chicago, 1970), p. 2.
66 A Fundamental Goal
Those witnesses against aid stated that the concept of separation
of church and state has always been a part of the federal legal tradi-
tion. They said freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the federal Constitution, is possible only if religious
groups are free to function in their sphere of activity without inter-
ference or support from government. If public assistance were given
to church schools, these witnesses contended, the government would
have to determine which schools qualify for such aid, thus placing
the government in the position of defining a legitimate religion and
of supervising the curriculum and instruction of religious schools.
This was said to destroy the principle of religious freedom under
which religious schools operate.
To the proponents of aid the argument based on the separation
of church and state as applied to aid was false; they believed the
separation required by the federal Constitution was the separation
necessary to promote religious liberties. To bar the child from re-
ceiving aid for secular subjects because of the presence of religion in
a school was to them discrimination based on religion, not neutral
action by the state.
The second argument was the child benefit theory, which — as
used by the Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Allen (392
U.S. 236, 1968) — sees certain services as benefiting the child and
not the institution. Those favoring aid explained that the purpose
of aid to a private school is not to benefit the institution but to pro-
vide the child with an equal opportunity for an adequate education
despite religious belief. The religion of a child is not subject to con-
trol by the state, but the child himself is subject to its control. If the
child may fulfill his duty to the state by attending a parochial school,
the state should be able to fulfill its duty to the child by facilitating
his attendance. Those opposed to aid called it impossible to benefit
the child without benefiting the institution. Parents who enjoy the
freedom of choice of private schools must, they said, assume full
obligation for the support of these schools. They contended the
child is not denied free instruction in secular subjects, since that is
available in the public schools.
A third argument on this issue was whether or not nonpublic
schools served a sufficient public function to receive aid. Those
favoring aid stated that the public purpose of compulsory school
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 67
attendance laws is equally achieved whether the child is educated
in a state or an independent school. Hence, there should be no
penalty and no denial of educational tax funds if parents exercise
their civil rights in the choice of an independent school. Since edu-
cation has been termed an investment in human capital, they said,
it is inconsistent with sound economic practice for governments to
discriminate against the nonpublic school pupil and invest only in
the public school student. They argued that without aid many pri-
vate schools would not be able to perform at a high level and thus
would produce citizens without a first-rate education.
Those against aid claimed that private schools have the privilege
of defining their activities and their clientele and are legally respon-
sible only to their own membership, whereas public schools have
the privilege of receiving tax support but must serve and be respon-
sible to the whole community. In addition, nonpublic schools often
embrace objectives which are not legitimate public purposes, such
as inculcating religious beliefs, giving a superior education to the
wealthy, insuring the continuity of class characteristics, and avoid-
ing the integration of the races.
These last points are closely related to the fourth argument —
the integrative versus divisive effect of nonpublic school education.
Those against aid seemed to feel that private and parochial schools
encourage a divisiveness at a stage in a child's development when
he should be learning to mingle with people unlike himself. Assign-
ment of public funds to nonpublic schools could, they felt, easily
lead additional religious, social, economic, or racial groups to un-
dertake full-scale parochial or private education which, in turn,
would lead to further divisiveness in society and to an erosion of the
public school system. One of the most prevalent arguments was that
the support of private education would lead to a greater amount of
segregation of the races. In the South many state plans to sup-
port private education had been declared unconstitutional on the
grounds that they were designed to establish and maintain a system
of segregated schools.17
To counter this argument those favoring aid pointed to the func-
17 See, for example, Poindexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance Commis-
sion, 296 F. Supp 686 (E. D. La.), aff'd sub. nom. Louisiana Commission for
Needy Children v. Poindexter, 393 U. S. 17 (1968).
68 A Fundamental Goal
tion nonpublic schools serve in providing alternative approaches in
a pluralistic society. Children who are educated in different envi-
ronments are more likely to become thinking, creative citizens, they
argued, when confronted with viewpoints different from their own.
They rejected any contention that the good of American society is
identical or coextensive with the good of the public schools.
Perhaps the most frequent argument heard on both sides, espe-
cially among lay citizens, was the financial argument. Proponents
of aid, of course, pointed to the lack of money to keep nonpublic
schools running, to the fact that parents of children attending these
schools were forced to pay a double taxation, and to the huge in-
crease in expenditure the closing of nonpublic schools would cause
the taxpayer. The opponents of aid stressed that there were insuffi-
cient funds available to support even the public schools, that if
parents chose private education they should support it financially,
and that the increased cost to taxpayers if all nonpublic schools
were to close would be much less than the cost of aid given to such
schools.
Surprising Unanimity on a Difficult Question
The large amount of research asked for by the committee on this
subject indicates the apprehension felt by the members. Early in
the convention the committee had been informed of the experts'
opinions on the cause of the defeat of the proposed New York State
Constitution of 1967. The committee was in agreement that aid to
nonpublic schools should be one of the last issues it would deal with
so outside hostilities would not be awakened to influence the con-
sideration of other matters.
Although witnesses had testified on aid to nonpublic schools and
delegates had presented their proposals on the subject, there was
no formal committee discussion on the issue prior to March 19. A
tentative hand vote taken on March 4 showed that seven members
were in favor of retaining section 3 as it was written, three were
disposed to make it stronger, and one voted to remove the section
completely. The three who wished to strengthen section 3 were
Dove, Fogal, and Patch. Howard, from a largely Catholic area,
voted for deletion. Dove said early in the convention he "had not
realized the emotional nature of this issue." Although his daughter
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 69
attended a parochial school, Patch objected to the role such schools
played in the city: "Many whites send their children to these schools
so as to avoid the heavy black concentration in the public schools."18
Again it should be noted that of the committee members only Bot-
tino was a Catholic.
When formal discussion in committee began on March 1 9 it was
generally agreed that the subject must not be allowed to get out of
hand and thereby endanger the whole document. Even though sep-
arate submission of the section on aid was still a possibility, that
alone would not have eliminated the potentially divisive contro-
versy which could endanger the entire constitution's chance for
passage. On March 25 an informal survey of the delegates showed
the following positions on section 3 : Bottino, Dove, Evans, and
Kamin: retain; Buford: retain or strengthen; Mathias: retain or
insert the language of the First Amendment. Fogal and Patch would
have preferred to strengthen the section but would accept retention.
Howard preferred deletion but retention was acceptable to her also.
Parker felt strengthening the section would be wiser but retention
was acceptable.
It is clear that the delegates were moving toward a decision to
keep Article VIII, section 3, as written in 1870. Mathias was absent
for the final vote on April 8 and Patch passed, but all others voted
in favor of retention. The outcome was no surprise; the rationale to
accompany the committee proposal had been written prior to the
vote and was approved, with a few changes, on April 9.19
Two significant factors had contributed to this decision: first,
the fear and emotion surrounding the issue made the committee
members hesitant to recommend even the slightest change. Second,
although many witnesses would have much preferred to see the
section either deleted or significantly strengthened, the overwhelm-
ing majority, including very influential organizations on both sides
of the issue, specifically asked for retention. Among those so doing
18 Interview with the author, March 25, 1970.
19 In fact, the committee counsel had been assured from the outset that
section 3 would be retained without change. When approached in January to
serve as counsel, Dr. Browne had demurred; since he was on record as opposing
any change in section 3, he felt he would be embarrassed to be associated with
a committee which proposed such change. Mathias and Buford assured him at
that time that no change in section 3 could possibly come from the committee.
70 A Fundamental Goal
who opposed aid were the Illinois Congress of Parents and Teachers
and the Illinois Education Association. On the other side, the most
influential organization favoring aid, the Illinois Catholic Confer-
ence, also asked that section 3 be retained. This organization was
presenting the official position of the Catholic Church on the issue.
That organizations with such opposed viewpoints should recommend
the same alternative revealed both the confusing effect of court in-
terpretation of section 3 and the sophistication of the Catholic lob-
byists, who obviously were familiar with those court interpretations.
The committee was faced with five alternatives. The first possi-
bility, to strengthen section 3, was unacceptable to the committee.
It would have created great opposition from those in favor of aid.
Its effect might have been to invalidate such existing programs as
the Illinois State Scholarship program, the school lunch program,
aid to handicapped children, and pupil transportation. In addition,
as the committee stated in its report, "More restrictive language . . .
might entirely prohibit the State from doing business with any pri-
vate entity." The committee had "no desire to retard or eliminate
such established programs, nor to venture into unexamined areas of
restriction where the effects could go far beyond education."
The remaining four alternatives were to retain the 1870 lan-
guage, to weaken the 1870 section, to substitute the wording of the
First Amendment prohibiting any law "respecting an establishment
of religion," or to strike the entire section. The committee followed
the reasoning of the legal experts in rejecting the last three alterna-
tives. To change the 1870 language to one of these alternatives
would make a difference only if the alternatives were more permis-
sive than section 3. The committee realized that no provision should
be adopted that would be more permissive than the First Amend-
ment language because it would be struck down by the federal
courts. The committee was of the opinion that, in fact, Illinois Su-
preme Court interpretations of the 1870 wording had about the
same practical effect as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
First Amendment of the federal Constitution. In addition, legal
opinion held that section 3 was no more restrictive than the fed-
eral language, and yielded the same substantive results.20 Therefore,
20 On the impact of retaining or revising section 3, see Braden and Cohn,
pp. 404-09-
Aid to Nonpublic Schools 71
the committee reasoned, if any of the last four alternatives would
yield the same result, why change the 1870 language at all, espe-
cially when any change would only arouse the opposition of one
group or another?
All religious and educational organizations seemed well satisfied
with retaining section 3 as it read, even though they were or should
have been cognizant of the aid which might be allowed under this
section. Thus, the committee determined to make no change in the
existing language; that is, they instructed Style and Drafting to
retain the section exactly as written in 1870, without even the
changes in punctuation that might have been made as a technical
matter.
If this issue had not been so controversial and if the delegates
had not known from New York's experience of the effects of the
removal of the ban on aid, the same degree of conflict might well
have developed over change in this section as was exhibited re-
garding other sections of the education article. The lawyers on the
committee, familiar with court interpretations of the issue, might
have fought for deletion of the section or the insertion of the word-
ing of the First Amendment. The educators, fearing what aid to non-
public schools would do to the public schools, might have insisted
the section be strengthened. However, the apprehension felt by all
members, the fear of bringing the issue to the floor without the
strength of a unanimous committee position, and the necessity to
calm vocal public opinion caused all members to agree to retention
of Article VIII, section 3.
VI
The Financing of Education:
Beginning to Face a Long-Range Problem
The last of the five major issues to be considered by the Committee
on Education was the financing of the public school system in Illi-
nois. The matter was taken up after submission of the committee's
first report to the convention, and was ultimately submitted as a
second report. No previous Illinois constitutional convention had
dealt with this subject, perhaps because past delegates had seen it
as a matter for legislative determination.1
During the school year 1 968-1 969 the cost of operating the
schools in Illinois was approximately two billion dollars.2 Although
Illinois ranked fairly high among the states in total expenditure per
pupil ($973 average), only a small amount of this total, 27 percent,
came from state funds. An increase in the guaranteed minimum
support (from $400 per pupil in average daily attendance to the
$520 provided by the 1969 General Assembly)3 had actually raised
the support level to over 30 percent by the time of the convention.
1 It is important to remember that this issue was being considered before
the California decision in Serrano v. Priest (5 Cal. 3rd 584, 487 P.2d 1241,
96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 1 97 1 ) and the Texas decision in Rodriguez v. San Antonio
Independent School District (357 F. Supp. 280 (W. D. Texas, 1972)). For a
discussion of the impact of these cases on constitutionality of school financing
systems, see Chapter IX, infra.
2 These and other figures cited are from the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction of Illinois.
3 The foundation figure was determined as follows:
(a) Average daily attendance of pupils was weighted, with each elementary
72
The Financing of Education 73
However, the delegates were working with figures given to them
prior to this increase.
Even with 30 percent of the money for public school education
provided by state funds, approximately 64 percent still had to be
supplied by local financing, the remaining 6 percent coming from
federal grants and small miscellaneous sources such as the income
from school lands. At the time of the convention the funds for pub-
lic education through the secondary level came chiefly from locally
levied property taxes. Over three-fifths of the resources for operating
expenses and almost all of the funds for capital expenditures were
supplied by these taxes.
The method of financing based mainly on property taxes has
caused vast inequalities in the money spent on education from dis-
trict to district. Since property is not distributed equally throughout
the state and since school district lines are drawn without regard
to assessed valuation, the amount of tax money available to such
districts varies.4 Some communities have a disproportionately small
share of school responsibilities. Table 1 shows the large differences
in assessed valuation as of 1969.
Thus a school district with only $5,462 of assessed valuation per
pupil would need to levy a 4 percent educational tax to yield as
much as $210 per pupil, which is far below the present cost of
minimal schooling. Another district with $105,815 of assessed valu-
ation would produce the amount of about $4,230 per pupil at a 4
percent rate, which is more than is probably needed for even the
highest quality education. In one elementary district a 4 percent
rate would produce more than $14,000 per pupil. Thus the amount
pupil given the value of 1 .0, each kindergarten pupil 0.5, and each high school
pupil 1.25.
(b) The qualifying tax rate for unit districts was $1.08 per $100 of assessed
valuation and $0.90 for dual districts. If these tax rates failed to equal the
equalization level of $520 per weighted pupil in average daily attendance (1969
level), the state paid the difference. This had the effect of guaranteeing funds
to provide a "foundation level" in each district.
(c) In any case, the state would provide a "flat grant" of at least $48 per
weighted pupil in average daily attendance.
4 Assessed valuation is defined by the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction as "a valuation determined by a governmental unit upon real and
personal property which provides a basis for levying taxes." Assessed valuation
per pupil is therefore the total assessment for a school district divided by the
number of pupils in that district.
74
A Fundamental Goal
Table i . Assessed Valuations per Average Daily Attendance Pupil
Highest
Median
Lowest
Unit Districts
Over 12,000 pupils
6,000—1 2,000 pupils
3,000—6,000 pupils
1,000—3,000 pupils
Under 1,000 pupils
Elementary Districts
Over 6,000 pupils
3,000—6,000 pupils
1,000—3,000 pupils
Under 1,000 pupils
High School Districts
Over 6,000 pupils
3,000-6,000 pupils
1,000-3,000 pupils
Under 1,000 pupils
$23,733
24,501
31,292
99,086
54,494
39,354
54,972
65,660
372,160
87,978
105,815
88,713
235,6n
$18,421
17,711
i8,575
18,732
26,947
24,720
22,970
20,634
29,822
53,309
55,588
53,137
70,172
$10,452
1 1,024
7,127
8,474
6,662
10,286
7,629
6,450
5,462
42,977
27,524
24,1 18
26,197
NOTE: Compiled from Illinois Education Association, Educational Effort Study
(Springfield, 1970).
of money spent on education for a child in an Illinois school is
largely a product of where that particular student resides. In poorer
districts, which can least afford a high tax rate, the citizens must
place a heavy tax burden on themselves in order to achieve the
same level of spending that is reached by wealthier districts through
a light tax load.
Emerging Concern in Committee
For decades Illinois has sought to overcome these inequalities
through a foundation level program as established by the legisla-
ture.5 At the time of the convention, however, Illinois ranked only
thirty-fourth among states in state support for education. Many
delegates felt that the only way to overcome present educational
inequalities was to institute a system of full state funding of the
common schools. Such a position was reflected in Member Propo-
sal 434:
5 See note 3, supra.
The Financing of Education 75
Funds for the public schools shall be appropriated by the Gen-
eral Assembly and no local governmental unit may levy taxes or
appropriate funds for educational purposes.6
Member Proposal 32 stated, in the same vein:
No school district may levy a property tax for educational pur-
poses as distinguished from building purposes.
Although many delegates were opposed to consideration of this
matter altogether, still others, while feeling that total state financing
was too extreme an approach, did favor the more moderate mea-
sures typified by Member Proposal 570 :
The State has the primary duty to finance the public school
system. The State may provide for the establishment of local
school districts as it deems necessary for purposes of administra-
tion and operation, or financing, or both.
Most witnesses who spoke to the committee at least alluded to
the subject of financing the public school system, although some
merely stressed the need for increased funds. Many emphasized the
need for true "equal educational opportunity," and others asked
that a source other than local property taxation be found to support
schools. Professional educators especially stressed the need for the
removal of the five percent limit on bonded indebtedness; this
matter was not, however, under consideration by the Education
Committee.
Experts on financing were invited to speak to the committee;
discussion began in mid-April and continued through May, June,
and part of July. The witnesses included representatives from the
Illinois Association of School Boards, the Chicago Board of Edu-
cation, the Illinois School Building Commission, the Statistical In-
formation Department of the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, the Illinois Education Association, the Bureau of the
Budget, and the Board of Higher Education. A general "think
tank" meeting was held with various educational experts on May
12, and the experts were asked to mail in suggested constitutional
6 This proposal was sponsored by Kamin. He introduced it, however, at the
urging of the Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago.
76 A Fundamental Goal
language on financing after they had thoroughly considered the
subject.
Few specific wordings were submitted either by mail from these
experts or from others speaking on finance. The Welfare Council
of Metropolitan Chicago gave its support to the wording of Mem-
ber Proposal 434. Prof. G. Alan Hickrod of Illinois State Univer-
sity asked that the constitution remain silent on the subject, stating
that this was an area for legislative determination which should not
be resolved by the courts. The Illinois Association of School Admin-
istrators suggested this wording :
The Legislature shall provide only for the support and main-
tenance of a system of free public schools guaranteeing equal
educational opportunity and open to all children in the State.
Research indicated that of the twenty-three state constitutions
which mentioned school revenue, almost all referred in general
terms to the funds which should be used to support the public
schools or directed the legislature to make suitable provision for
financing education. The only more precise references were in the
Oklahoma and California constitutions, which specifically stated
the per capita amount to be supplied by the state for each student
or the lowest per capita amount to be allowed.
Despite these findings, the Committee on Education was obvi-
ously moved by the statistics discussed above and by statements of
witnesses describing the plight of the schools to try to alleviate some
of these financial problems. Urban delegates on the committee had
long recognized the plight of inner city schools. Eloquent testimony
from witnesses helped to awaken others to the situation. The main
point, however, was that almost all schools, not just those in the
cities, were in need of greater financial assistance. The issue of
financing of the public schools had not been discussed during the
early committee meetings. Yet, as discussion proceeded, it was obvi-
ous that all members felt a genuine concern over this issue.
Superficial Consensus Turns to Discord
That the committee would again become divided into factions was
not obvious at the inception of the discussion. Bottino was the first
to insist that financing receive careful scrutiny. As early as March
The Financing of Education 77
13 he commented on the neglect of the subject and as chairman of
the subcommittee on financing it was he who requested most of the
research that was done. Early discussions indicated that all com-
mittee members were disturbed about the issue but that, because
of its complexity, no one knew how to handle it constitutionally.
On June 2 a hand vote was taken on this language, submitted
by Fogal :
To meet the goals in Section One the State shall provide the
total financial support of public education through the secondary
level.
Six members voted in favor of the language (Fogal, Dove, Howard,
Parker, Patch, and Pughsley), two were opposed (Buford and
Evans ) , and one voted present ( Kamin ) . Mathias and Bottino were
absent. At this point Fogal and Patch were the most insistent upon
total state financing of education, and Fogal stated on the author's
questionnaire that he had no position on this issue prior to the con-
vention and that his stand was almost entirely influenced by Patch.
The ensuing change of positions is somewhat difficult to analyze.
Although Bottino had orginally been vociferously in favor of a great
degree of change in the system of financing of the public schools ( as
he indicated in May in reply to the author's questionnaire ) , in June
he joined Evans, Buford, and Mathias in opposing total state financ-
ing. On June 2, Parker voted for Fogal's wording, which called for
full support of education from the state level ; but he too later joined
the other members of the Old Guard in opposing the concept of
total funding provided by the state.
Delegate Dove had originally voted for Fogal's wording, but he
indicated later to the author that he had not been in favor of the
proposal. Also, in response to the author's questionnaire, which he
returned in August, he stated :
Although I was responsible for bringing the "full state financing"
issue to a head, I don't really approve of it at least as of today. I
believe it will gradually come in the future. I was a little disturbed
when it was changed to ninety per cent to increase its "salability."
I was a little afraid that it might pass — but my intuition cor-
rectly informed me it would not. I was amused by the stir that
it caused.
78 A Fundamental Goal
Kamin was also basically of the opinion that financing was a
legislative matter. Kamin was a product of the Evanston, Illinois,
school system, one which is reputed to be among the finest in the
country. He privately voiced apprehension about what total state
financing might do to such a school system, fearing that it might
bring all school systems to a level of mediocrity rather than raise the
poor ones to a higher level. Nevertheless, Kamin and Dove spoke
in favor of the position adopted by the Young Turks. Therefore,
only Fogal, Patch, and Howard, of the younger members, were
originally totally committed to full state financing of the public
schools.
These positions resulted from political gamesmanship on the part
of both groups. Bottino and Parker joined the other members of the
Old Guard in opposing total state financing. Their reasons for doing
so may have been more a result of the distrust they felt for the
Young Turks and the fact that they did not want to vote with these
younger members than of their opposition to the concept of total
state financing.7 There is evidence of this possibility in the fact that
Parker and Bottino offered amendments at the full convention very
similar to the Young Turks' final suggestion of 90 percent state
support.
Among the younger group, political gamesmanship was most
particularly exhibited by Dove, whose remark about his amusement
over the "stir" that total state financing caused has been referred to.
This remark and others which he made privately show that he was
not totally committed to the concept of full state financing. Kamin
eventually joined the other members of the Young Turks in their
support of the concept, but did not commit himself until a ruling
was announced on the floor of the convention that all committee
reports had to be in by the following week. Reputedly this an-
nouncement was made at the instigation of Mathias, and the youn-
ger members felt that in so doing he was trying to prevent them
from presenting any proposal on financing. Irritated at this develop-
ment, Kamin then joined the other Young Turks, since he consid-
ered it necessary that the full convention give some attention to fi-
nancing of the public schools. His original hesitation had been due
7 In addition, it was rumored Bottino's enthusiasm for total state support
waned after a conference with Governor Ogilvie, who opposed the concept.
The Financing of Education 79
to a feeling that the proposal was basically legislative in nature.8
This gave the younger group the majority position, for Pughsley
had returned and was voting with the Young Turks on this issue.
These were the reasons given by those opting for total state sup-
port of education : First, such a system would tend to equalize tax
ratios in the state. Second, it would permit redrawing of school
district boundaries into more efficient units, without so great a con-
cern for tax consequences. Third, it would permit all districts to
benefit from the taxes paid by industry. Fourth, the burden of tax
free property in districts would be equalized. Fifth, it would permit
local school boards and administrators to concentrate their efforts
on educational matters rather than on the yearly fights for budgets
and bond issues. Sixth, it would produce a level of educational op-
portunity that would be more equal throughout the state for all
children. It was the sixth point with which the delegates were
mainly concerned. The rest was just "icing on the cake" as one
member put it.
Pressure and Gamesmanship Generate Resolution
The press, in various newspaper articles, reported the proposal of
the Young Turks, and public disapproval began to be voiced. Dele-
gates were confronted by their constituents when they returned
home over the weekend, and letters and telegrams expressing oppo-
sition to full state financing were sent to the committee. In the face
of public reaction, most of which was stated in the form of outrage
over the fear of loss of local control from such a proposal, the mem-
bers of the younger group changed from a position of total state
financing to one in which 90 percent of the financing would come
from the state :
To meet the goals of Section One, substantially all funds for
the operational costs of the free public schools shall be appropri-
ated by the General Assembly for the benefit of the local school
districts. No local governmental unit or school district may levy
taxes or appropriate funds for the purposes of such educational
operation except to the extent of ten per cent (10%) of the
8 Malcolm Kamin, in interviews with the author, July-August 1970.
80 A Fundamental Goal
amount received by that district from the General Assembly in
that year.
However, even with this change, Evans, Mathias, Buford, Parker
and Bottino still refused to join the majority (Kamin, Dove, Patch,
Fogal, Howard, and Pughsley). Their reasons were first, that such
a provision is a legislative matter; second, that the General Assem-
bly had already been continually increasing funds for schools, and
the majority plan would only endanger the tradition of local con-
trol of public schools; third, the majority position would result in a
leveling and a standardization of the educational programs of the
public schools; fourth, that it would cause decreased local interest
in schools; fifth, that this proposal would require greatly increased
taxes or the implementation of new taxes; sixth, that such a plan
is virtually untried and should not be frozen into the constitution.
Despite these objections the majority report calling for 90 percent
financing from the state was presented to the full convention. The
minority — the Old Guard — wrote a report asking for the defeat
of the proposal of the Young Turks.
On this issue can again be seen the conflict over the degree of
change which was to be incorporated into the education article.
Delegates Buford, Evans, and Mathias were against anything so
radical as total state financing, and they convinced Parker and
Bottino to join their ranks. That these two delegates were so per-
suaded gives some support to the claim of political gamesmanship
among these members; they did not want to be a part of the oppo-
site "team." Delegates Kamin and Dove, of the younger members,
were not totally committed to the concept of full state financing due
to their feelings that it was basically a legislative matter and to
their apprehension as to the results it might cause. Dove exhibited
political gamesmanship in his support of the concept, as has been
shown by his questionnaire response. He, like Bottino and Parker,
did not want to join the opposing "team." Friendship with the
other Young Turks would have made it difficult for him to do so,
even had he wanted to. Delegate Kamin eventually joined the other
younger members — partially, perhaps, out of feelings of camara-
derie, but also because he felt that the full convention should give
its attention to the issue of financing of the public schools. That
The Financing of Education 81
this was also a part of Dove's motivation is shown by another re-
sponse from his questionnaire :
Although properly a legislative matter I believe the Committee
acted in a responsible manner in its proposal. This is one of the
many areas which the legislature cannot research fully and full
state financing of education will most likely never be reached
without constitutional mandate.
The result of the split into factions was ultimately beneficial, for
it meant that the finance section reported to the floor of the con-
vention was one which provided a radical starting point for dis-
cussion. If the committee had reached a less innovative position
through compromise, it is possible the convention might have in-
cluded no mention of financing in the final education article. In
interviews with the author at the outset of the convention, most
delegates had indicated that they saw financing as a legislative mat-
ter. Yet, as will be shown in the next chapter, the full convention
was forced to consider the issue. The delegates were shown the dis-
graceful plight of many schools in Illinois. Support for the concept
of total state financing grew, and although the resulting section on
finance in the education article may be considered hortatory in
nature, it at least shows the concern which materialized during the
convention.9
9 For a summary of court interpretation of these financing provisions, see
the discussion of the legal battle over school financing in Chapter IX, infra.
VII
The Education Article at First Reading
As reported from committee on April 1 4 the education article read
Section 1 . Goal — Free Schools
The paramount goal of the people of the State shall be the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capacities.
To achieve this goal, it shall be the duty of the State to provide
for an efficient system of high quality public educational institu-
tions and services.
Education in the public schools through the secondary level
shall be free. There may be such other free education as the Gen-
eral Assembly provides.
Section 2. State Board of Education — Chief State Educational
Officer
There shall be a State Board of Education selected on a re-
gional basis. The number of members, their qualifications, terms
of office and manner of selection shall be provided by law. The
Board shall establish goals, determine policies, provide for plan-
ning and evaluating educational programs, recommend financing
and have such jurisdiction, powers, and duties as provided by law.
There shall be a chief state educational officer appointed by
the State Board of Education.
82
The Education Article at First Reading 83
Section 3. Public Funds for Sectarian Purposes Forbidden
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, town-
ship, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make
any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, any-
thing in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support
or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or
other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or
sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation
of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the
State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any
sectarian purpose.
In addition to these sections, which were considered as Proposal
1, the younger members of the committee reported Proposal 2,
containing the following section, to the floor of the convention on
July 22 :
Section 4.
To meet the goals of Section 1, substantially all funds for the
operational costs of the free public schools shall be appropriated
by the General Assembly for the benefit of the local school dis-
tricts. No local governmental unit or school district may levy taxes
or appropriate funds for the purposes of such educational opera-
tion except to the extent of ten per cent (10%) of the amount
received by that district from the General Assembly in that year.
Section i, Educational Objectives
The Education Committee followed the standard procedure of as-
signing the presentation and explanation of each section to the
convention to certain of its members. Section 1 was presented to
the convention on April 22 by Patch and Fogal - — the two mem-
bers of the committee who had originally been the most interested
in producing a strong statement of goals. Both delegates gave a
thorough explanation of the section, stressing the need for educa-
tion, the rights of the underprivileged, and the fact that the state
had not been fulfilling its responsibilities in this area.
Fogal emphasized that the third paragraph of section 1 meant all
people — not just children as in the 1870 document — were to be
entitled to free education through the secondary level. In addition,
he stressed that the third paragraph provided for changing condi-
84 A Fundamental Goal
tions by allowing the General Assembly to make other forms or
levels of education free when needed.1
There were fifteen questions directed to the committee in regard
to section 1 . Many were of a miscellaneous nature, such as whether
using the term "efficient" would incorporate the law which had
grown up around this word in the 1870 constitution. The commit-
tee felt it would. Many questions — and those most significant for
the following debate — dealt with the word "paramount" and with
whether the section was a mandate to the General Assembly to
provide for the educational development of all persons. One dele-
gate asked whether the first paragraph of section 1 was in the
nature of a preamble which should be included in the preamble
to the whole document. To the committee, "paramount" meant
education would be the number one goal of the state, funded before
all other programs. They insisted the first paragraph was meant
to be an operative mandate to the General Assembly, not simply a
preamble.
In regard to the word "free," the convention was most concerned
to know if the word referred to anything other than tuition in the
elementary and secondary schools. Fogal responded :
You may recall earlier in our committee deliberations we voted
tentatively to strike "free," since most of us recognize that we
don't have — and as far as I know we have never had — totally
free public schools; and we reconsidered that earlier position. We
felt that tradition will continue, probably, to interpret "free public
education" as we always have, and it's open to either provide
totally free education, whether you are speaking of book fees,
book rentals, or PE equipment, or we can continue as we are now,
I don't think we have changed it.
During the debates on section 1 on April 23, six amendments
were offered; all of them sought to remove or to modify "para-
1 References to the debates and proceedings of the Sixth Illinois Constitu-
tional Convention have not been specifically noted in this or the following
chapters. The reader who wishes to read through the debates on the education
article will find most of the formative process described herein in the verbatim
transcripts for April 22-24 a°d 28, May 6, and August 4, 13, and 31. See Sixth
Illinois Constitutional Convention, Record of Proceedings, 1970, Vol. II, pp.
749-837, 839-862, and 923-949; Vol. IV, pp. 3535~3586; and Vol. V, pp.
4105-4182 and 4457-4528.
The Education Article at First Reading 85
mount." An amendment to paragraphs one and two of the com-
mittee report was suggested by Stanley Johnson, a Republican
from DeKalb :
The State shall provide for an efficient system of high-quality
educational institutions and services.
In defending this amendment Johnson explained that, although he
was in total agreement with all Patch had said about the impor-
tance of education, it seemed to him that "the paramount goal is
to create a society of which education is just one part." Johnson's
amendment also removed the word "public" from the second
paragraph, so the state could resort to other than public institutions
in order to educate its citizens if necessary. With no other delegates
speaking in favor of his amendment, and after an eloquent defense
of the committee's section by Patch, Johnson felt forced to say, "I
knew that I was going to uncover a hornet's nest when I offered
this, and Delegate Patch's once-again display of eloquence puts
us all who might want to vote for this amendment in the very
peculiar position of voting against good education for everyone."
The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
The second amendment, offered by David Davis, a Republican
from Bloomington, left the second and third paragraphs of section
1 of the committee proposal intact, but substituted for the first
paragraph :
The educational development of all persons to the limits of
their capacities is a matter of major concern and importance to
the State of Illinois and the residents thereof.
The debate again centered on the fact that other activities of the
state could also be considered paramount. Although receiving more
support from other delegates than did the previous amendment,
the suggestion failed by a hand count of fifty-six to forty-three.
The third amendment, submitted by Mary Pappas, a Republican
from Lake Bluff, proposed to change "the paramount" to "a para-
mount." The amendment received some support, but was called
"nit picking" and grammatically incorrect, in that paramount sug-
gests the highest with no others equal to it. The amendment was
defeated by a voice vote.
86 A Fundamental Goal
The fourth amendment, a culmination of many suggestions made
during the debate, was offered by George Lewis, a Democrat from
Quincy. Lewis proposed changing "the paramount" to "a funda-
mental." He declared : "We should not leave a word that does not
really connote what we do believe about a free society, and that
is we believe that life, liberty, and happiness are the paramount
goal, and education is a means to that goal." Having received
almost no opposition from committee members and with the sup-
port of all other delegates who spoke on it, this amendment passed
seventy-four to twenty-seven on a hand vote.
Another amendment, by Clifford Downen, would have deleted
the entire committee proposal and substituted the wording of sec-
tion i of the 1870 constitution; it was defeated seventy-nine to
twelve. Also rejected, but by a voice vote, was an amendment by
Michael Madigan which stated :
A fundamental goal of the People of the State shall be the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capacities, whether this educational development be academic,
vocational, technical or otherwise.
Lewis's insertion of "a fundamental" in place of "the para-
mount" was a major change from the intention of the committee
proposal. Many committee members were not upset but relieved
when the change was made, whereas others were thankful that
nothing else had been altered.2 Only Delegate Patch seemed greatly
disappointed.
Few of the delegates at the full convention wished to be branded
as voting "against education," as is shown by the responses of those
who were interviewed. Many of them felt that the language of sec-
tion 1 was too idealistic, that in addition to the word "paramount,"
the goal of educating people "to the limits of their capacities" was
immeasurable and fruitless. However, they were content to make
only a change of two words, leaving the rest of the section as re-
ported from committee. In providing an education article which
was, at least, strongly worded, they were showing their constituents
that they were "for education." As one delegate told the author in
2 Mathias was rumored to be working against section 1 because of its strong
language.
The Education Article at First Reading 87
confidence: "If I had voted against this section, there would have
been hell to pay at home — and not just from the educators. Edu-
cation at the moment is just too hot to handle. I almost felt forced
to vote for "paramount." Whether the wording is or is not overly
idealistic may be determined if and when Illinois courts hear suits
brought under the section. It will be of interest to discover what
interpretation is given to the words "fundamental" and "to the
limits of their capacities."
After first reading, therefore, section 1 read :
A fundamental goal of the People of the State shall be the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capacities.
To achieve this goal, it shall be the duty of the State to pro-
vide for an efficient system of high quality public educational
institutions and services.
Education in the public schools through the secondary level
shall be free. There may be such other free education as the Gen-
eral Assembly provides.
Section 2, State Board of Education
Section 2 was presented to the convention by Buford and Evans
on April 20. Buford emphasized that various aspects — such as
manner of selection, powers, duties, and jurisdiction of the board —
had been left to the General Assembly because the committee
couldn't reach agreement and felt the full convention would also
be divided. He pointed out that only the Illinois Federation of
Teachers was opposed to the creation of such a board. Evans spoke
of the necessity for a truly professional chief state school officer and
of the fact that a state board would take over many duties from the
overburdened office of superintendent of public instruction.
There were fifteen questions directed to the committee concern-
ing section 2. Most dealt with the selection and jurisdiction of the
board, showing that, as in committee, these areas of section 2
seemed to be the most controversial. The committee members re-
iterated that since neither method of selection was demonstrably
superior, the determination should be left to the General Assembly.
In regard to jurisdiction the committee emphasized that no power
88 A Fundamental Goal
was being taken away from local boards of education, and that
whether the board's authority should extend to the university level
or only to elementary and secondary education should not be frozen
into the constitution. The committee was asked whether there was
really a need for such a board, to which Kamin replied :
In our first section, the statement is that "education is the para-
mount duty of the state." ... it is the state's primary obligation
and duty to look after education, and therefore a state agency
which is devoted fully to education is the best means of expressing
this. . . . The movement is for more . . . centralization of education
at the state level, and this is what we feel the board would
provide.
During the debate on section 2 on April 24 there were seven
amendments offered. By far the most lengthy and significant debate
was over appointment versus election of the chief educational offi-
cer, as well as of the board members themselves. The particular
amendment which provoked the most discussion was suggested by
Robert Butler, a Republican from Marion :
There shall be a State Board of Education elected from dis-
tricts. The number of members, their qualifications, terms of
office, and manner of election shall be determined by law.
Originally the proposal had stated "by non-partisan ballot" and
"on a regional basis," but Butler had accepted changes from the
floor.
The arguments for and against the amendment were generally
the same as the arguments in committee over appointment versus
election. In defense of his proposal Butler declared :
I propose this amendment because I believe in the principle that
when the taxpayers' dollars are spent, the taxpayers should be
guaranteed a direct voice in the manner in which their money is
spent. ... I do not believe we were elected delegates to this Con-
vention for the purpose of passing on to another body the matter
of making decisions. . . . Why not let the people who foot the
bill be guaranteed by their constitution that the persons who set
the policy for education in Illinois will be directly responsible to
the will of the people of Illinois? After all, if there is one funda-
mental truth upon which we can all agree, it is that they who
The Education Article at First Reading 89
must face the voters at the ballot box at regular intervals will
most quickly heed the voice of the people between elections.
Speaking against the Butler amendment, David Kenney, a Re-
publican from Carbondale, stated :
The decision we are asked to make here is not one between elec-
tion and appointment . . . but the choice is one between specifying
election of this board and permitting the General Assembly to
specify the method of choice — either election or appointment. . . .
In short, I believe that the committee's proposal gives the elected
General Assembly . . . the maximum freedom to design a state
board of education which will serve us best, and I am always
suspicious of those who would freeze a particular form into the
constitution. I sometimes have the feeling that in so doing they
seek a personal advantage and may perhaps be wishing to deny
the public, through its elected representatives, the maximum free-
dom in seeking the best arrangement.
In support of the committee proposal Dove added that it would
be a mistake to provide for the election of the board without know-
ing its exact powers and duties. Kamin suggested that an elected
board, stipulated in the constitution, would foreclose the possibility
of having the governor, the superintendent of schools or former
superintendents, or other educational and legislative officers serve
as ex officio members — a system which had proved helpful in
other states.
Only a sampling of the discussion of this amendment has been
provided; the debate occupies almost a hundred pages in the tran-
script. However, the general and most important arguments have
been given: guaranteeing power and representation to the people
versus providing for flexibility and change at a future date. The
divisive nature of the question is apparent from the closeness of the
vote — fifty-two members voted in favor of the Butler amendment,
fifty-four against.
Since a roll call vote was requested on the issue, it is possible to
analyze the vote in order to determine some reasons for the narrow
defeat of the amendment. Deletion of any mention of nonpartisan
ballot had been proposed by David Stahl, a member of the Chicago
Democratic organization, which often opposes nonpartisan elec-
90 A Fundamental Goal
tions. (They had, for instance, opposed a nonpartisan constitutional
convention. ) It is logical that any organization which controlled an
area as decisively as the Democrats controlled Chicago in 1970
would favor partisan elections to be sure its chosen representatives
were selected. In Illinois, as was evidenced by those delegates who
spoke on other issues which dealt with election versus appointment
of officials, two other groups usually favor election — blacks and
downstaters. On this amendment, however, the traditional pattern
did not develop. Whereas most Chicago Democrats voted in favor
of the proposal, six were opposed. Most blacks (including Patch)
voted for it, but five voted against. Again, most downstaters were
in favor of the Butler proposal, but there were many exceptions.
There are two likely explanations for this vote. First, the delegates
were not really voting for election and against appointment, but
rather for election and against letting the legislature determine the
issue. It is conceivable that the appeal of flexibility was great
enough to overcome any strong stance on election or appointment.
As Davis explained :
Let me say that originally I had planned to offer an amendment
here to provide for an appointive board and to take away from
the legislature the right to determine the method of selection. I
am persuaded by what has been said here this morning that it is
essential that we leave this ultimate decision to the legislature,
not only in the first instance, but for the purpose of change in the
event that the legislature finds at some future date that change is
dictated by the circumstances which may later arise.
Secondly, the special nature of the subject of education may have
overcome the traditional biases on election and appointment. Many
delegates who might otherwise have favored election alluded to the
need for educational experts and for special consideration in the
area of education, which might not be provided through the elec-
tive process.3 In this, as in other respects, education was considered
"different," in that standards distinct from those used for other
issues were to be employed.
Much argument took place on an amendment offered by Wen-
3 Buford, a strong proponent of the elective method, made an exception for
education, as did James Thompson, Charles Coleman, and Paul Elward. Inter-
views with the author, April 1970.
The Education Article at First Reading 91
dell Durr, a Democrat from Edwardsville, which would have
substituted the following for the committee proposal :
There shall be a full-time State Board of Education elected on
a regional basis. The number of members, their qualifications,
compensation and terms of office shall be determined by law.
The members of the Board shall be elected at general elections.
The Board shall establish goals, determine policies, provide for
planning and evaluating educational programs, recommend fi-
nancing and have such jurisdiction, powers and duties as provided
by law.
The Board shall choose one of its members as a chief state edu-
cational officer, on such basis, with such powers, and for such
term as the Board determines.
The amendment originally stated "elected by non-partisan ballot,"
but again the deletion was suggested by one of the Chicago Demo-
crats and was agreed to.
Durr asserted that his amendment was meant to do three things :
ensure that the people themselves would control the education of
their children ; require a board which would devote full time to its
task; and provide for an education officer who would be responsive
to the people. Kamin responded that requiring a full time board
would in fact be creating a fourth branch of government, and that
requiring the chief education officer to come from among the mem-
bers could destroy the whole concept of a professional officer to
lead education in the state. The amendment was defeated by a roll
call vote of sixty-eight to thirty-four.
This vote was not a reliable indicator of delegate positions, how-
ever, because it included more than one change from the committee
report. One delegate who had previously voted against the Butler
proposal voted yes on this amendment, but fifteen who had earlier
voted yes were against the Durr suggestion. Of those against, nine
were Chicago Democrats ; neither Durr's amendment nor the Butler
proposal was apparently a "party" issue. Nor was there bloc voting
along racial, religious, sex, age, or occupational lines on the Durr
or Butler amendments. The lack of any strict division along these
lines again would seem to indicate that education was thought to
be "different."
The only amendment to section 2 of the committee proposal
92 A Fundamental Goal
which succeeded was offered by Helen Kinney, a Republican from
Hinsdale who often voted with the Democrats. The Kinney amend-
ment added "elected or" before the word "selected" in the com-
mittee proposal, thus making the wording "there shall be a State
Board of Education elected or selected on a regional basis." Al-
though the committee insisted that "selected" was a neutral word
intended to refer to both appointment and election, Kinney felt the
addition was needed to make section 2 correspond to the wording
of the judicial article. The amendment passed by a hand vote of
forty-eight to thirty-four. Although the amendment was purportedly
just for means of clarification, it should be noted that Kinney was
consistently on the side of those favoring the elective method, and
thus her intention may have been to make it more likely or easier
for the General Assembly to choose election.
The final version of section 2 after first reading was
There shall be a State Board of Education elected or selected
on a regional basis. The number of members, their qualifications,
terms of office and manner of selection shall be provided by law.
The Board shall establish goals, determine policies, provide for
planning and evaluating educational programs, recommend fi-
nancing and have such jurisdiction, powers and duties as pro-
vided by law.
There shall be a chief state educational officer appointed by the
State Board of Education. 1
Section 3, Aid to Nonpublic Schools
The explanation of section 3 on aid to nonpublic schools was pre-
sented for the committee by Kamin and Howard. Howard sum-
marized the report on the section, listing the approaches considered
in committee. As discussed earlier in this manuscript, the committee
had rejected making the section more restrictive for fear of invali-
dating certain existing programs. Yet the courts in some cases had
already shown themselves hesitant to uphold any language less
restrictive than the federal First Amendment, so committee mem-
bers felt liberalizing the section would have raised the political
controversy incident to change without effecting any actual change
in the legal status of aid to nonpublic schools. Since the existing
The Education Article at First Reading 93
section had been interpreted as no more restrictive than the First
Amendment, the committee chose the alternative of leaving that
section unchanged. That decision, they thought, would reaffirm the
traditional separation of church and state while allowing any pro-
grams that are constitutional under the First Amendment. Howard
also pointed out that major organizations on both sides of this issue
had asked that the section remain unchanged.
There were twenty-nine questions addressed to the committee on
section 3. Most of them were attempts to ascertain exactly what the
committee report meant, for the language of section 3, especially
to nonlawyers, appeared much more prohibitive than the commit-
tee claimed. Kamin explained that although the language was re-
strictive, the Illinois courts had previously interpreted certain pro-
grams of support as permissible in that they aided the child rather
than the institution. He emphasized that each particular program
in the future would have to be considered separately to see if it met
this criterion.
Kamin also made these interpretations in the course of the dis-
cussion : first, in the opinion of the committee, the Illinois Supreme
Court would follow the lead of the United States Supreme Court
in deciding how much aid could be allowed; the words "support"
or "aid" in the Illinois Constitution would be interpreted in the
same way that the word "establish" in the federal First Amendment
is understood. Second, although a change in the wording, such as
the substitution of the First Amendment, might make the section
more clear, any change in such an emotional issue — even one that
was not substantial — might be to the detriment of the ratification
of the constitution as a whole. In addition, because the decision
ultimately rested with the United States Supreme Court, "the re-
tention or deletion of this language is not . . . determinative in any
way of the question of what programs of aid are constitutional and
what programs of aid are not constitutional." Third, although it is
possible that the Illinois Supreme Court could interpret the language
of section 3 as being very restrictive, and although the United States
Supreme Court could in the future place a more restrictive inter-
pretation on the meaning of the word "establish," it was the as-
sumption of the committee that the courts would continue to follow
the precedents they had established in this field.
94 A- Fundamental Goal
Republican Thomas Miller from South Holland asked :
Of the organizations who testified before your committee, were
there any who favored retention of the present language because
they feel that public aid in some direct or indirect form to the
private school system is constitutionally possible?
In answer Kamin stated :
I would have to say that — yes, most of them, to the extent that
we spoke categorically with them — to the extent that we asked,
as we did ask, virtually every witness who testified before us, "Do
you understand that under this language we now have school
bussing [sic] in Illinois for parochial schools?" And they said,
"Yes, we understand that." We said, "Do you understand that
there are school lunch programs? Do you understand that there
is a state scholarship program existing under this language?"
They said yes they did, and they understood.
Kamin seemed to be implying that all of those who testified on this
question were fully cognizant of forms of aid being extended at
that time under section 3. Although presumably most educational
experts and organizations testifying against aid were aware of pre-
vious court interpretations and of the fact that the language might
not be interpreted as strictly as it would appear, it is doubtful if
the ordinary citizen who testified against aid or the citizens who
would be voting on the new constitution were so cognizant. Even
though the committee had attempted to make all witnesses aware
of existing aid, it is especially likely that the laymen did not realize
court interpretations had left open the possibility of more extensive
aid, such as the voucher or the payment of services plans. Yet even
the experts and organizations — those against aid as well as those
in favor — were willing to permit the section to remain unchanged,
thus leaving final determination to the courts.
In response to a statement from Arthur Lennon, a Catholic Re-
publican from Joliet, that the issue was really a legislative matter,
Kamin agreed that this might be one reason for deleting section 3 ;
but he defended the committee's recommendation by pointing to
the difficulty of explaining that consideration to nonexperts. In
answer to a delegate who suggested that separate submission must
be the solution to the dilemma, Kamin declared :
The Education Article at First Reading 95
What we feel is that any attempt to submit this question as a
separate question ... is going to, in fact, place a false issue before
the people; because . . . the retention or deletion of this language
is not, as we have indicated, determinative in any way of the ques-
tion of what programs of aid are constitutional and what pro-
grams of aid are not constitutional.
Though leaving the section unchanged involved some of the same
misrepresentation, Kamin thought the costs of changing the word-
ing might have proved greater than the costs of slightly misleading
the citizenry. As the section stood, both sides felt their aims were
being accomplished. The citizens could direct their outrage at fu-
ture court interpretations rather than at the proposed constitution.
There were only three amendments offered when the committee
proposal on section 3 was perfected April 28. Michael Madigan, a
Catholic Chicago Democrat, suggested :
The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The amendment was ruled out of order because it did not refer to
education.
Lennon then proposed to delete section 3 from the constitu-
tion. Surprisingly the debates on the deletion of the section were of
a mild, unemotional nature. The one exception was a lengthy dia-
tribe by Father Francis Lawlor, a Catholic priest from Chicago's
southwest side, who pointed out the benefits provided by nonpublic
schools and the "double taxation" paid by those who send their
children to them. The main points raised by those supporting dele-
tion were that the section was legislative in nature, and that it
presented the issue in a restrictive manner which was perhaps de-
ceiving. As Lennon stated in defense of his amendment :
I have talked to Mr. Kamin and other members of the Education
Committee. I have studied and looked at their report, and I think
it is a good report. . . . They say, in effect, "don't rock the boat."
And that is a good, practical, political reason not to do some-
thing. . . . The fact remains, though, from a purely and simply
constitutional view point . . . that this type of provision in a con-
stitution is nothing less or more than unenforceable legislation and
probably the result of medieval bigotry, no more and no less. . . .
96 A Fundamental Goal
So I suggest that, really, what we have gotten to is a rationaliza-
tion of doing what we want to do, contrary to the obvious inten-
tion of the language of our present constitution.
Kamin replied that the question of whether or not to delete the
language is really a posing of the question on separation of church
and state, which is unarguable since it is provided for by the federal
Constitution. To suggest deletion would, he said, raise a false issue,
since the federal language is the ultimate determining criterion.
While the majority of the members were opposed to deletion,
some delegates voted for retention of the wording of the section for
reasons other than those presented in the committee report. Bernard
Weisberg, a Jew who — as a Chicago attorney — was cognizant
of court decisions and legal ramifications, stated :
I would like to state my disagreement with the committee report's
interpretation of article VIII, section 3. I do not believe that this
Convention has authority to make any statement about the in-
tention of the present constitutional provision which will be
entitled to any weight in the courts. If, however, the courts do,
some day, look to our debates, they should note that many of the
delegates who vote today to retain article VIII, section 3, do so
because we believe it means what it says, and because we believe
that it expresses wise policy.
Clyde Parker of the Education Committee seemed to be in agree-
ment with Weisberg, rather than with the committee report. He
declared, "The language is clear. And it can be understood. And
if it is a part of the basic law of our state, then I, for one, believe it
should be followed and that devious ways to get around it should
not be created."
The amendment to delete the section failed by a roll call vote of
seventy-nine to thirty-five. The vote was not strictly along party
lines, although the majority of white Chicago Democrats voted for
it, nor was it solidly along Catholic versus non-Catholic lines, since
some Catholics voted against deletion, quite possibly out of fear that
increased aid to nonpublic schools would increase segregation.4
Other reasons for the vote, as given by the delegates interviewed,
were diverse: the majority of those questioned who voted against
4 Samuel Patch, in an interview with the author.
The Education Article at First Reading 97
deletion agreed with the committee that controversy should be
avoided since deletion would not make a substantive difference;
others, such as Weisberg, Parker, Friedrich, and Garrison, intended
their votes as an affirmation of their support of the existing language
at its face value. Of those voting for deletion who were questioned,
some members, such as Lennon, Thompson, and Young, felt that
aid to nonpublic schools was a legislative matter; but the majority
of those interviewed who favored deletion did so because they hoped
more aid to nonpublic schools would be possible without the 1870
wording. Those so indicating were Arrigo, Daley, Elward, Gierach,
Knuppel, Laurino, Lyons, Madigan, Miska, Strunk, Tuchow, and
Tomei. Tomei, a Catholic, was the only member of the Indepen-
dent bloc who voted in favor of deletion. The other delegates men-
tioned with Tomei were all Democrats, and all but Tuchow were
Catholics.
Debate over the only other amendment was short. That proposal,
offered by Helen Kinney, would have added this qualification after
the words "shall ever" and "purpose" in the committee proposal:
... in any manner which conflicts with the provision in the Con-
stitution of the United States prohibiting the making of any law
respecting the establishment of religion.
This amendment failed without further debate by a hand vote of
fifty-nine to twenty-six.
In general the debates show that, by contrast with 1870, there
was little overt religious prejudice at work. Rather, the delegates
themselves seem to have been motivated by other factors, such as
the economic situation, constitutional purity, and the desire to pla-
cate the voters. However, in their wish to avoid controversy and to
please the voters, they may have been giving in to their constituents,
some of whom were motivated by religious prejudice or by misinfor-
mation ( as had been demonstrated by such organizations as Ameri-
cans United for Separation of Church and State ) . However, the
retention of language written in an era of high religious feeling
was not in itself a sign of religious prejudice, since the delegates
knew final interpretation would be left to the courts. It does indicate
that the delegates were willing to retain confusing wording written
in a more bigoted era in order to please the voters and to ensure that
g8 A Fundamental Goal
controversy would not endanger the ratification of the constitution.
Here, as with most other educational issues discussed by the full
convention, the main basis for decision was apparently the per-
ceived will of the voters and the necessity felt by the delegates to
placate them.
Deletions from the 1870 Article
The deletion of sections 2, 4, and 5 of the education article of the
1870 constitution caused little discussion at the full convention, al-
though some delegates would have preferred to see section 2 re-
tained. This section read :
All lands, moneys, or other property, donated, granted or re-
ceived for school, college, seminary or university purposes, and
the proceeds thereof, shall be faithfully applied to the objects for
which such gifts or grants were made.
In explaining the committee's proposal to delete section 2, Dove
pointed out the very limited application of the section and said the
committee considered it an area of intergovernmental taxation and
more properly a legislative matter. The questions raised on this
section were few, but it was noted that some townships had gone
to particular trouble to preserve lands under this provision so the
income arising from the property could be applied to the reduction
of school taxes levied against the owners of property within that
township.
The points raised about this section were sufficient to cause the
committee, on April 28, to ask for a postponement of debate on
the section until the matter could be considered more thoroughly.
Between April 28 and May 6 the committee reexamined its recom-
mendation to delete section 2 and heard testimony from experts,
in particular from Delegate Thomas McCracken, a Cook County
deputy assessor. All testifying experts supported the committee
proposal to remove the section.
Debate was heard on the section again on May 6, at which time
the committee reiterated its recommendation to delete. Some mem-
bers of the committee suggested adding a provision in the schedule
— that part of the constitution which stipulated when various pro-
visions were to take effect — that the section should continue to be
The Education Article at First Reading 99
active for those counties with land applicable under this part of the
charter :
The provision of section 2 of article VIII of the Constitution
of Illinois effective August 8, 1870, shall continue in force and
effect as to all lands, monies, or other property donated, granted
or received from school, college, seminary or university purposes
prior to August 8, 1870, and the proceeds thereof.
This was not a unanimous position of the committee, however, and
a minority (Dove, Fogal, and Howard) wished for no mention of
this subject in the schedule.
The vote on the motion to delete section 2 was carried eighty-four
to two, with no discussion. Debate was heard, however, on the
scheduling proposal. Speaking for the minority of the committee
which did not favor this provision, Dove pointed out that since any
lands used for school purposes are exempt from taxation under the
revenue article, only those lands acquired for school purposes prior
to 1870 which were now used for nonschool purposes would be
affected. The total income from these lands in 1969 amounted to
$1,330,000. Dove explained that if this section were removed and
the property became taxable, most of the tax money would be re-
turned to the schools, in any case, since the schools were the major
recipient of such tax money. Secondly, he pointed out that although
these lands were exempt from special and benefit taxation as well as
general assessment, in 1969 the legislature had passed a law which
provided that the lessee or occupant of any real property which is
privately used and for any reason exempt from taxation must pay a
"use tax" equivalent to the amount of a real property tax. The use
tax thus in large part negated the special effects of section 2. Dove
also emphasized that a constitution is for the whole state and not
for the particular protection of one group or another.
The main argument in favor of the provision in the schedule was
supplied by David Davis, who had a special interest in West Town-
ship, McLean County, which had preserved its 640 acres of section
16 land, plus 80 acres added after the original grant, intact. Davis
explained it was likely the legislature would direct that these lands
be sold and the proceeds distributed not to the townships which had
preserved the lands but to the entire school district. The view of
ioo A Fundamental Goal
the minority of the committee prevailed, however, and the motion
to include a provision dealing with section 2 in the schedule was
defeated by a hand vote of sixty-six to twenty-five.
Section 4 of the 1870 constitution was deleted on April 28 by
a vote of eighty-nine to zero and section 5 was deleted the same
day by the vote of eighty-one to zero.
Proposal 2 : School Financing
The only other educational matter to be debated at first reading
was Proposal 2, on school financing, suggested by Fogal, Patch,
Howard, Dove, Kamin, and Pughsley :
Section 4.
To meet the goals of Section 1, substantially all funds for the
operational costs of the free public schools shall be appropriated
by the General Assembly for the benefit of the local school dis-
tricts. No local governmental unit or school district may levy taxes
or appropriate funds for the purposes of such educational opera-
tion except to the extent of ten percent (10%) of the amount
received by that district from the General Assembly in that year.
Mathias, Evans, Bottino, Buford, and Parker proposed a minority
report that asked for the deletion of the above wording.
This subject was presented to the full convention as a second
report because it came so much later than the other sections on
education (August instead of April or May). It was the last matter
to be considered by the convention at first reading. Tempers were
short and frustration was high among the delegates, who had ex-
pected to finish all of their business by August 8, when most of the
money for the convention would give out. On August 4, however,
they had not yet even completed first reading.
Discussion on the topic of financing of public schools was lengthy ;
it occupies three hundred thirty-two pages of the transcript of
August 4. The presentation for the majority of the committee was
made by Kamin, Howard, Dove, and Fogal. Kamin stressed that
this was a well thought out proposal, not — as he said various news-
papers had been charging — some "last-minute idea that some long
haired idealist dreamed up." He pointed out that the proposal was
meant to accomplish two things — reduction of the burden of the
The Education Article at First Reading 101
real and personal property taxes on the farmer and the homeowner
and equalization of educational opportunities throughout the state.
Rather than being of a legislative nature, the proposal had constitu-
tional significance because "it is unlikely that the General Assembly
would ever adopt a plan which focuses political pressure on it for
more money when it could continue with a plan where political
pressure is divided between itself and the local communities."
Howard addressed herself to the financial crisis of the Illinois
schools, saying, "No student in the State of Illinois should be denied
an adequate educational opportunity because of the accident of
local tax property geography." Dove described how the proposal
would work, predicting that the effect of the committee proposal
would be to reduce local taxes which had been levied for educa-
tional purposes by approximately 68 percent. He explained that in
1969 Illinois ranked forty-third out of the fifty states in the amount
of revenue supplied by the state for educational purposes. The
national average was well over 40 percent, whereas the state in
Illinois contributed only 25 percent.
Fogal spoke on the impact the committee proposal would have
on local control: "Local control, the committee supports whole-
heartedly. We have no desire and no intention in changing this
traditional concept of local control over the schools. We feel that
this is a basic element in our educational heritage, and we certainly
intend for this concept to continue under our committee's proposal."
He went on to point out that the four areas most connected with
local control — teachers, administration, curriculum, and require-
ments of local school districts — would not be affected by the com-
mittee proposal. He reminded the convention that under the 1870
constitution the General Assembly could, at any time in the past,
have taken over complete control of the schools.
The presentation for the minority of the committee was made
by Mathias, Buford, and Evans. Mathias made four points : ( 1 )
before a mandate is frozen into the constitution the effects which it
will produce ought to be ascertained and, in the case of the majority
proposal, possible results had not been sufficiently investigated 5(2)
the legislature had been increasing the state educational appropria-
tion yearly, and eventually total state financing might be reached
by this method; (3) to produce the money needed for the majority
102 A Fundamental Goal
proposal, taxes would have to be greatly increased; if the depen-
dence were on income tax, rates would have to go up to 5 percent
on individuals and 9 percent on corporations; if on consumption
taxes, they would have to be doubled; (4) because of increased
state regulations and standards to be met under the majority pro-
posal, a great deal of local control would be lost.
Buford addressed himself to the leveling of the standards of edu-
cational opportunities which would allegedly accrue from the ma-
jority report. The fear of the minority of the committee, Buford
stated, was that all school districts would be reduced to the level of
mediocrity rather than raised to greater heights. With all districts
receiving the same share of a limited amount of money and pre-
vented from raising more than 10 percent of that amount locally,
many districts would receive fewer funds for educational purposes
than they had previously and few districts would receive a great
deal more than at present. He added, "The great American experi-
ment of a dynamic locally controlled free public school system will
be gone. This, my dear friends, is the one institution most unique to
the American way of life — the American philosophy of challeng-
ing each of us to do his best."
Evans declared that the most important reason such a proposal
should not be in the constitution is that "it does freeze in a pattern
that will make it very difficult for our proposed state board and the
General Assembly to work in order to really bring about equitable
financing for our public schools."
The usual period of questioning after the explanation was dis-
pensed with, and the convention proceeded to amendments of the
majority proposal. The first amendment was offered by Clyde
Parker :
To meet the goals of section 1 of this article the General Assem-
bly shall raise and distribute revenue from sources other than ad
valorem property taxes to the extent of 90 percent of the average
total cost of public education as determined by the State Board
of Education. Funds shall be distributed to the public school dis-
tricts on a per-pupil basis as determined by average daily
enrollment.
Local school districts shall have the authority to conduct refer-
endums to levy taxes to make up the difference to 100 percent
The Education Article at First Reading 103
of their total necessary financial budget. Not more than one refer-
endum shall be held each twelve months' period.
The purpose of this amendment was to insure that the property tax
would not be further burdened, that the total cost of education, in-
cluding capital outlays and debt retirement rather than just opera-
tional costs, would be considered, and most importantly that local
districts could raise as much additional money beyond that provided
by the state as they felt was needed.
Speaking against the amendment, Kamin said that since it was
not possible to mandate the General Assembly to provide money,
the amendment did not put sufficient political pressure on that body
to force them to do so :
This gives the General Assembly an escape hatch in two ways.
One, the state board of education can set a low figure as being
the average total cost, because there is no actual cost averaging
going on. This is something merely derived by the board of edu-
cation.
Secondly, so long as the local districts have the authority to,
by referendum, raise whatever they want at the local level, no
matter how much they get from the General Assembly, you are
going to continue to have the enormous disparities whereby the
local districts which are wealthy can add sufficient to whatever
they are getting from the General Assembly to have a much
higher level of education than the poorer districts in the state.
Kamin also pointed out that there was nothing in the majority re-
port which would require that every school district should receive
the same amount of money, for the state board and the General
Assembly could determine if some districts needed more. The
amendment failed by a hand count of fifty-five to twenty-six.
The second of three amendments was presented by Bottino:
The General Assembly shall be responsible for the funding of
public educational institutions and services. Distribution of state
funds shall provide for substantial parity of educational oppor-
tunity throughout the state, except that the General Assembly
may provide additional funds for special services. The funds ob-
tained through local taxation by or for a school district or munic-
ipality for a free school purpose shall not exceed 50 percent of
104 -^ Fundamental Goal
the total funds for such purpose. Full implementation date is July
i, 1976. This section is recommended for separate submission.
The main thrust of this amendment was that local districts would
be allowed to provide up to 50 percent of the total cost of education.
In defense of his amendment, Bottino remarked that it had been
predicted that by 1980, 25 to 30 percent of the support of local
schools would come from federal sources. Therefore, to freeze the
90 percent state and 10 percent local figures into the constitution
as the majority report provided would be a mistake.
In speaking against the Bottino amendment Kamin pointed out
that the reference to a substantial parity of educational opportunity
would be likely to bring a court case in challenge of the educational
system, a challenge which might be very dangerous. If the system
were not adjudged to provide substantial parity, the court would
have little recourse other than to void the entire system until a better
one was created. He added that since the majority report referred
only to operational costs, the local districts would still be supplying
building costs, which compose 15 to 20 percent of the school bud-
get. Thus, the majority proposal would let the local school districts
provide about 25 to 30 percent of the total costs of education — a
result not greatly different from the 50 percent provided for in the
Bottino amendment. Kamin stressed that "the broader the money-
raising opportunities at the local level, the wider are going to be the
disparities." The amendment failed by a hand vote of fifty-one to
thirty-seven.
By far the most lengthy and heated debate was over the third
amendment, presented by committee chairman Mathias, which
asked for the deletion of the majority proposal. It was Mathias's
position that the majority proposal was unnecessary or harmful
because, as he had stated earlier, the legislature had continued to
increase state support ; too much money would be required, causing
an enormous increase in taxes; the proposal would cause a leveling
and decrease in educational excellence; and local control would be
destroyed or significantly reduced.
The debate on both sides of the issue centered on two factors:
taxes and equal educational opportunity. Those favoring deletion
of the majority proposal pointed to the great increase in taxes
The Education Article at First Reading 105
which the proposal would require, although virtually every delegate
stated support for equal educational opportunity and increased state
funds for education. These same delegates called this a legislative
matter and said the legislature should be trusted since it had been
gradually increasing state support. Two other points were stressed
by many delegates — the lack of flexibility provided by this proposal
and the fact that educational needs of all school districts are not
identical.
The main emphases of those favoring the majority report were the
chance it afforded for equal educational opportunity and the relief
it would provide from property taxes. It was also noted that with
the likely passage in November of 1970 of a referendum eliminating
the personal property tax, two-thirds of which went for educational
purposes, the schools would be in a difficult financial position. To
these objections and others from many delegates the majority an-
swered that the proposal did not lock in any formula, but was
instead a provision that the General Assembly be responsible for
the raising and distributing of 90 percent of the money for educa-
tional purposes.
The vote on the amendment was lengthy, in that twenty delegates
asked to explain their vote. Again, it would appear that various
delegates did not want to seem to vote "against" education as they
later indicated in interviews. Many who voted in favor of the
amendment to delete prefaced their vote with the word "reluc-
tantly." The motion to delete carried by a vote of sixty-nine to
thirty-eight. All but nine Democrats opposed deletion of the pro-
posal. Only two of the nine Democrats who favored deletion were
from Chicago — Leonard Foster, the black who almost never voted
with the other blacks, and Louis Marolda, who should probably
not be considered a Democrat since he always followed the lead of
the maverick Father Lawlor.
Also in opposition to the financing suggestion, hence in favor of
deletion, were most Republicans; but five of them favored the in-
clusion of such a statement in the constitution. These five were
Howard, a member of the Young Turk faction of the Education
Committee, Helen Kinney who, as has been mentioned, often voted
with the Democrats, John Alexander, a young and liberal Republi-
106 A Fundamental Goal
can, and James Thompson and Harlan Rigney, downstate Repub-
licans who stated that they hoped that such a proposal would help
rural schools in their districts.
Of the nine Independents, six voted for deletion of the financing
proposal whereas three favored retention. That the measure did not
receive more solid support from this group is somewhat surprising,
since it was a proposal supported throughout the country almost
exclusively by very liberal organizations and individuals. However,
the Independents interviewed who opposed the suggestion indicated
they felt the proposal had not been fully enough researched to merit
inclusion in a constitution.
Only Foster of the black delegates voted against the 90 percent
state financing proposal ; and it was rumored among the blacks that
the Democrats did not really support the majority proposal but,
knowing it would fail, voted for it to placate black Democrats al-
ready somewhat dissatisfied with Democratic positions on other
issues. Another rumor, as explained to the author by a confidential
source, saw the Democrats hoping that the finance measure would
pass so they could offer to change their votes at a later time if the
Republicans would give in on some other issues of importance to
the Democrats, such as home rule. Whether there was any basis to
these rumors is unclear. They were denied by all Democrats
interviewed.
If the rumors are disregarded, it can be seen that on the issue of
school financing geography played a significant role ; those delegates
from the city and from some rural districts with poor schools tended
to support such a drastic increase in state financing, whereas those
from wealthier districts regardless of party affiliation opposed the
measure, fearing the results it might have for the schools in their
area.
This issue caused much controversy both inside and outside of
the convention. Many newspapers in the state, including all four
major Chicago papers, wrote editorials against the proposal. Many
of these editorials were distributed to the delegates, so they were
obviously cognizant of the disapproval of the news media. The
Chicago Tribune editorialized :
We doubt . . . that the Con-Con education committee has offered
a practical proposal, and we doubt furthermore that any plan of
The Education Article at First Reading 107
school financing should be frozen into a state constitution. . . .
Financing of schools is a problem for the legislature, not the
convention. The committee's proposal should be junked.5
Delegates had discussed the majority proposal with their constit-
uents who, in general, had displayed great displeasure with it. But
in this case in addition to wishing to pacify the voters, delegates
responded in interviews that they were fearful of mandating in the
constitution a program which they felt had not been sufficiently
investigated. However, the fact that most did not want to appear
to be against education was demonstrated in that almost all dele-
gates were careful to point out their support for equal education
and increased state funds.
Some members of the majority who had presented the proposal
were relieved that it failed to pass.6 These members did accomplish
a significant purpose in presenting their proposal, nevertheless; con-
ditions in the schools were described, and because of the radical
nature of the proposal and the attention received from the press,
the issue was brought to the public. The sponsors were hopeful they
might have stimulated awareness and further thinking on the
subject.
Speculation is possible about whether the outcome of this section
would have been any different had the proposal included a provi-
sion for the gradual implementation of 90 percent state financing.
That this was the intention of the majority was mentioned in the
report which accompanied the proposal, but for reasons of consti-
tutional purity — that is, because implementation was a matter
for the schedule, not the body, of the constitution — it was not a
part of the proposal itself nor was it emphasized to any extent in
the debates at the full convention.
The Impact of First Reading
At the end of first reading remarkably little had been amended in
the proposal of the Committee on Education. "The paramount" goal
had been changed to "a fundamental"; the word "selected" had
5 Chicago Tribune, August 1, 1970.
6 Such a position was expressed by Dove and Kamin, for the same reasons
that motivated them in committee. See Chapter III, supra.
108 A Fundamental Goal
been revised to read "elected or selected"; the section on financing
had been deleted. Compared to other committee reports that had
come before the full convention, these changes were very few. Edu-
cation had undoubtedly benefited from its generally low visibility
both before and during the convention : outside pressures were few,
and even at the convention, only the Welfare Council of Metro-
politan Chicago and the Chamber of Commerce turned serious
lobbying efforts toward education. Supporters of a strong education
article were not forced to "trade off" desired changes against im-
provements in other articles, as was at times the case in negotiations
at the convention. The members of the committee were proud and
elated.
The education article was revised after first reading by the Com-
mittee on Style, Drafting, and Submission. The nature of most of
these changes was not substantive. However, it was unclear to Style
and Drafting what was meant by the words "The Board shall estab-
lish goals, determine policies, provide for planning and evaluating
educational programs, recommend financing" in section 2 of the
Education Committee proposal. They wanted to know if, by these
words, the state board of education would have certain powers
apart from the legislature. Despite vehement objections by Clyde
Parker, who wanted the board to be independent of the General
Assembly, the majority of the committee stated that giving indepen-
dent powers to the board would create a "fourth branch of govern-
ment" and that such was not their intent. This was the only matter
discussed by the committee between first and second readings.
VIII
The Education Article
at Second and Third Readings
Second reading of the education article occurred on August 13. At
this time the Committee on Style, Drafting, and Submission pre-
sented the article as revised. (Italicized words are additions to the
article as it stood after first reading; lined-out words indicate
omissions) :
Section 1 . Goal — Free Schools
A fundamental goal of the People of the State shall be is the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capacities.
To achieve this goal, it shall be the duty of the State to The
State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public
educational institutions and services.
Education in -the- public schools through the secondary level
shall be free. There may be such other free education as the
General Assembly provides by law.
Section 2. State Board of Education — Chief State Educational
Officer
There shall be is created a. State Board of Education to be
elected or selected appointed on a regional basis. The number of
members, their qualifications, terms of office and manner of
selection shall be provided by law. The Board shall establish
goals, determine policies, provide for planning and evaluating
109
no A Fundamental Goal
education programs, recommend financing and have such juris-
diction, duties and powers and duties as provided by law.
There shall be a chief educational officer appointed by The
State Board of Education shall appoint a chief state educational
officer.
Section 3. Public Funds for Sectarian Purposes Forbidden
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, town-
ship, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make
any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, any-
thing in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help sup-
port or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university,
or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church
or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or dona-
tion of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by
the State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for
any sectarian purpose.
After approval of an amendment changing section 2 to read
"elected or selected" rather than "appointed," and "election or
selection" rather than "selection" (thus restoring the language as
it had been after first reading), the report of the Committee on
Style, Drafting, and Submission was accepted.
The next amendment submitted at second reading was from
Parker, who tried to make the section coincide with his interpreta-
tion. His amendment stipulated.
The Board shall establish goals, determine policies, provide for
planning and evaluating education programs and recommend
financing. The Board shall have such other jurisdiction, duties
and powers as provided by law.
The amendment was submitted jointly with Pughsley, who also felt
that the board should be independent of the legislature in such
areas as establishing goals and policies; it was thus they argued to
the full convention.
Mathias contended that the board should not have independent
powers and moved a substitution which read :
The Board, except as limited by law, may establish goals, deter-
mine policies, provide for planning and evaluating education pro-
grams, and recommend financing. The Board shall have such other
duties and powers as provided by law.
The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 1 1 1
In explaining this new wording Mathias stated :
Under this language as proposed in this substitute amendment,
the board would have certain authority and powers and could
go ahead, but if the legislature is not in agreement with what
they have done, then the legislature would establish different
policies and different planning and evaluation programs and so
on. The board would not have powers that the General Assem-
bly would not override and not abrogate.
The Mathias substitution for the Parker amendment was adopted
without significant debate by a hand vote of fifty-two to nine.
Henry Green, a Republican from Urbana, offered an amend-
ment which dealt further with this question. In effect, it proposed
to make all activities of the state board initiate from the General
Assembly, rather than allowing the board to go ahead until vetoed
or restrained by the legislature :
The Board shall have such jurisdiction, powers, and duties as
provided by law.
Green, perhaps speaking for the representatives of higher education,
offered his amendment mainly out of a fear that the Mathias
amendment would create a superboard over all of education. It
was pointed out, however, that the board could well become func-
tionless under the Green amendment unless duties were provided
by the General Assembly. The members of the Education Commit-
tee also emphasized that the Mathias amendment was not meant
to create a superboard, although it contained the flexibility to allow
that. The Green amendment failed by a hand vote of sixty to
fourteen.
Dwight Friedrich, a Republican from Centralia, proposed an
amendment similar to one that had been offered at first reading.
It stated :
A chief state educational officer may be appointed by the State
Board of Education or he may be selected as otherwise provided
by law.
The amendment failed on a voice vote without significant debate.
Another suggestion, by Robert Butler, Republican from Marion,
would have made the state board an elected body; this amendment
H2 A Fundamental Goal
was also defeated with little discussion, by a voice vote of forty-eight
to thirty-seven.
The last proposed amendment to section 2 was offered by Chi-
cago Democrat Paul Elward and added after the word "basis" in
the committee proposal :
provided that any such board shall be elected or selected so as
to give substantially equal representation to all people in the State.
It was noted in the debate that the proposal accepted on first read-
ing provided for election or selection "on a regional basis," which
would mean districts subject to the one man-one vote rule if board
members were elected. If appointed, they would still have to be se-
lected on a regional basis, but it would be very difficult to have
equal representation by population. This amendment also failed,
with little debate, by a hand count of forty-one to twenty-seven. It
may have been that Elward — like most Chicago Democrats, in
favor of the election of state officials — was trying to make the
elective method more likely to be the choice of the General
Assembly.
The wording of section 2 after second reading was, therefore :
There is created a State Board of Education to be elected or
selected on a regional basis. The number of members, their qual-
ifications, terms of office and manner of election or selection shall
be provided by law. The Board, except as limited by law, may
establish goals, determine policies, provide for planning and eval-
uating education programs and recommend financing. The Board
shall have such other duties and powers as provided by law.
The State Board of Education shall appoint a chief state educa-
tional officer.
Two amendments were offered at second reading to section 3,
on aid to nonpublic schools. The first, proposed by Father Lawlor,
stated :
Nothing contained in this article shall be construed to deny
children the right to pray or receive religious instruction in pri-
vate religiously oriented schools which are State chartered and
conform to standards and requirements of the Illinois School
Code.
The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 113
In explaining his amendment Father Lawlor stated :
The Supreme Court has approved various forms of financial aid,
forms of bus transportation, school lunch programs, and so forth;
and if such programs are extended by law to parochial schools, I
don't want to see the children gradually placed in the posture
where the continuance of such financial aid will be cause for
denying them their right to pray or to receive religious instruction
in their own private schools.
The Education Committee pointed out that there was nothing in
their article that would deny the right to pray in private schools.
A roll call was requested on the amendment, and sixteen delegates
asked to explain their votes. Many voted no because they did not
know what the full implications of the amendment would be ; others
stated that nothing in the article would deny the right to pray in
private schools — that the amendment was referring to an interfer-
ence that did not exist. The proposal failed by a roll call vote of
fifty-four to forty-one with six passing.
No Independent voted in favor of the Lawlor proposal; sixteen
Republicans supported it, and twenty-two Democrats. Of those
Democrats in favor of the amendment nineteen were Catholics. In
their interviews delegates indicated confusion as to the meaning
of this amendment, but all stated that private schools should be
allowed to provide whatever religious instruction they wished.
The second amendment on this topic moved to delete section 3
entirely. The debate on the proposal, offered by Harold Nudelman,
a Chicago Democrat, was a reiteration of statements made at first
reading, and after only three speakers it was moved that the debate
be closed. The vote was forty-three in favor of the amendment and
fifty-nine against it; one delegate passed. Only one Independent,
Peter Tomei, a Catholic, voted for the amendment. All but ten
Republicans — four of them Catholics — opposed the proposal,
whereas only eleven Democrats were against. None of these eleven
were white Chicago Democrats and none of them were Catholics.
At first reading all but one black delegate had voted against removal
of section 3, but at second reading three of the blacks from Chicago
— Kemp, Coleman, and Nicholson — appeared to succumb to the
pressure of the Chicago Democratic organization and voted in favor
ii4 A Fundamental Goal
of deletion of the section. Many other Catholics were willing to fol-
low the recommendation of the Illinois Catholic Conference to
leave the section unchanged. Therefore, although this cannot be
seen as a completely Catholic versus non-Catholic issue, delegates
from within and without the Chicago Democratic organization have
assured the author that the largely Catholic Chicago Democratic
organization was applying pressure on its delegates to attain some
measure favorable to, or at least not contrary to, aid to nonpublic
schools. With the failure of the Nudelman amendment, section 3
remained unchanged after second reading.
The amendments to the education article to which the conven-
tion gave the closest attention at second reading were the two which
dealt with the financing of the public school system. The first
amendment, offered by Dawn Clark Netsch, an Independent from
Chicago's twelfth district, proposed a new section 4 :
The state has the primary responsibility for financing the system
of educational institutions and services.
In explaining her amendment Netsch admitted it was hortatory
language not legally enforceable. However, she continued:
I do believe that it serves two purposes. One, while it is not legally
enforceable, I hope that it will function as a conscience to the
General Assembly to assume a greater proportion of the financing
of the public schools of the state.
Secondly, I have been impressed in this Convention with a very
widespread sentiment among the delegates that the state should
assume a much greater proportion of the burden of financing of
public schools. If I am right that that is, indeed, a widespread
sentiment, it seems to me that it would be unfortunate for this
constitution, which does express basic commitments on the part
of the state, not to express it in some form or another.
The second amendment, offered by Bottino as a substitute for the
Netsch amendment, read :
The General Assembly shall be responsible for the funding of
public educational institutions and services. Distribution of State
funds shall provide for a substantial parity of educational oppor-
tunity throughout the State, except that the General Assembly
may provide additional funds for special services.
The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 115
The funds obtained through local taxation by or for a school
district or municipality for a free school purpose shall not exceed
50 percent of the total funds for such purposes.
Full implementation date, July 1, 1976. Recommended for
separate submission.
Bottino explained that, unlike the Netsch amendment, his language
was not hortatory and did not leave to the General Assembly a
duty about which they had been lax in the past.
The main debate on the Netsch amendment centered on whether
the word "primary" meant the state should have the largest share
in financing the public schools or whether it meant it was the state's
first obligation to finance the public schools. Netsch intended the
former. Speaking for the majority of the committee, Dove stated
they would favor Bottino's amendment and — if that failed —
Netsch's, because both amendments addressed themselves to in-
creased state support. Kamin, however, said the Bottino amend-
ment did not go far enough and the Netsch amendment did not go
anywhere. The Bottino amendment failed by a voice vote and the
Netsch amendment failed by a hand vote of forty-seven to thirty-
eight.
With the exception of one successful amendment intended to
clarify the meaning of section 2 and the two amendments on financ-
ing which failed, almost all other changes suggested at second read-
ing were merely reiterations of points that had been disposed of at
first reading. Those with biases for election of state officials and
those hoping for more aid to nonpublic schools were the most per-
sistent in attempting to have their interests included in the consti-
tution. They failed, however, because the majority of the delegates
apparently did not want to freeze a system of selection into the state
charter when it dealt with education, nor did they want to arouse a
controversy which might endanger the ratification of the document.
The vote to send the education article after second reading to
Style and Drafting was not unanimous. Some delegates voted
against it because of the "religious bigotry" contained in section 3,
whereas others agreed with Pughsley, who said, "I vote no, because
I do not feel the education article, the committee nor the Con-
vention, addressed itself to the serious educational problems of the
state of Illinois." She explained in an interview that, in her opinion,
1 1 6 A Fundamental Goal
the state board of education should have been given independent
powers and that the state should have taken over the financing of
the public schools. She felt that had she not been ill for so long,
she might have been able to help the committee create a better
article.
Other delegates gave specific reasons for voting against the ar-
ticle: Father Lawlor felt it perpetuated bigotry; Rosewell and
Elward agreed with Pughsley. It is likely, however, that Rosewell
and Elward, Catholic delegates like almost all others who voted
against the article, were objecting more to the retention of section
3 than to the lack of independent powers of the state board or the
failure of the passage of a system of increased funding from the
state level. An analysis of the roll call vote shows that of the fifteen
delegates voting against approving the education article, all but
two were Democrats. Of the two non-Democrats, one was Father
Lawlor, whose objections have been mentioned above, and the
other was James Thompson, a downstate Republican, who felt that
the convention should have made some provisions for increased
state financing. The pass votes were made by Lawlor's follower
Marolda and Ray Garrison, a conservative Republican who con-
sidered section i of the education article too broadly stated. The
article was approved, however, by a vote of eighty-four to fifteen
with two passes.
Third Reading
At third reading it was necessary to suspend the rules by a two-
thirds vote to debate or vote on any substantive amendments. An
attempt to do so when the education article was considered at third
reading on August 31 was made by Lawlor; he wished to consider
the following amendment to section 3 :
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, town-
ship, school district or other public corporation shall ever make
any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, any-
thing in aid of any church for any sectarian purpose.
Financial aid to support or sustain any school, academy, sem-
inary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution
controlled by any church or sectarian denomination shall be
strictly limited to public purpose only.
The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 117
No grant or donation of land, money or other personal property
shall ever be made by the State, or any such corporation, to any
church for any sectarian purpose.
Although Lawlor stated he did not consider the amendment a sub-
stantive change from the present section 3, close examination of the
wording of the Lawlor proposal would indicate that it was a very
large change in the intent of the section in that, in emphasizing
"sectarian purpose" and "public purpose only," it would have made
plans for state financial support for teaching of secular subjects in
private schools easier to accomplish. It was ruled to be substantive,
hence to require suspension of the rules. The proposal did not re-
ceive the necessary two-thirds vote to open debate since the final
tally was forty-six to forty-six with five passes.
Of the Republicans, only eleven voted in favor of opening debate
on the issue ; eight of these eleven were Catholics. All but two of the
Independents voted against allowing debate. Tomei favored further
discussion, and Ronald Smith, another Independent Catholic,
passed. Only eight Democrats voted against opening discussion on
the issue and of these all but Kamin, Patch, and the unpredictable
black delegate Leonard Foster were from Downstate rather than
Chicago. Either the Chicago Democratic organization was applying
even stronger pressure at this time, or many delegates felt they
could vote for opening debate and then vote against the amendment,
for all black delegates but Patch and Foster voted to allow discus-
sion. This was quite a change from first reading, when all but one
black delegate voted against amendment of section 3.
By a vote of seventy to twenty-nine, however, with three passes,
the convention did allow reconsideration of the Netsch amendment
which had been defeated at second reading. The amendment stated,
in revised form,
The State has the primary responsibility for financing the sys-
tem of public educational institutions and services.
In explaining her reasons for presenting the amendment again,
Netsch said there was widespread sentiment in the convention for
the state to assume a greater portion of school financing; as proof,
she noted that sixty-eight people had signed her amendment as
118 A Fundamental Goal
cosponsors. She again pointed out the statement was not legally en-
forceable but did indicate the direction in which the convention
wished the legislature to move.
Most debate was not on this amendment per se but rather on a
substitute presented by Kamin, Dove, Fogal, and Howard which
stipulated :
The state shall undertake to provide substantially all funds for
the financing of the free public schools from revenues other than
real property taxes.
Speaking for the sponsors of the amendment Kamin stated that al-
though they had previously favored the Netsch amendment, they
had begun to feel that it really accomplished very little. Kamin
claimed to have discovered, when talking to the sponsors of the
Netsch proposal, that all held varying ideas as to just what the
language was meant to do. Since the purpose in general was to
achieve greater equality of education while relieving the property
tax burden, Kamin felt the substitute amendment was more clearly
expressed and more directly to the purpose. He pointed out that the
substitute was also a hortatory statement, perhaps more so than the
Netsch amendment. He felt Netsch's amendment could allow dan-
gerous suits to the effect that property taxes were too great, since
the state had not yet undertaken the primary responsibility for fi-
nancing the school system. Rather than increasing money spent on
education, the Netsch amendment could, Kamin felt, mean a de-
crease in education at the local level without a concomitant increase
at the state level. This was so because local taxpayers might refuse
to support education at any level which meant a greater-than-50
percent contribution from local, as opposed to state, taxes. A judi-
cial decision would then be required to determine the meaning of
"primary." Kamin's amendment was an attempt to put pressure on
the state as opposed to the local school districts, and to force a
political, rather than a judicial, decision.1
The most vehement opposition to this substitution came from
Mathias and Albert Raby, a Chicago black Independent. Mathias
emphasized that the amendment could be interpreted even more
1 Kamin was apparently correct. See Blase v. State, 55 111. 2d 94, 302 N.E.
2d 46 (1973), and the discussion of school financing in Chapter IX, infra.
The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 119
broadly than the majority proposal defeated at first reading. He
also reiterated arguments dealing with loss of local control, lowering
of educational scandards, and the undetermined effects that might
accrue from such a proposal. Raby's opposition was very surprising,
since he had been one of the convention's strongest advocates of
full state financing. Although he purportedly objected to the sub-
stitute amendment because it was merely hortatory in nature and
declared: "I think people are playing games," Raby had other
objections he privately admitted later. He realized that the Netsch
amendment also was hortatory, so this was not the source of his
main objection. In fact, he voted against the substitution because
its sponsors had failed to consult Pughsley. Not knowing of the ex-
istence of the substitute to be proposed by some members of her
committee, Pughsley signed the Netsch amendment, thus indicating
that she was a cosponsor. This placed her in a somewhat awkward
position, since she greatly favored increased state support, which
might better have been provided by the substitute amendment.
Therefore, Raby was not objecting to the substitute itself, the sub-
ject matter of which he favored, but to the way in which it had
been handled.2 After he, as a leader of the liberal, Independent
forces, stated his opposition, the substitute had no chance for pas-
sage and was defeated by a hand vote of fifty-eight to thirty. The
Netsch amendment, however, with little debate, passed, also by a
hand vote, sixty-five to twenty-eight. The education article was
then sent to Style and Drafting for enrollment into the proposed
constitution.
Although the votes on the Netsch amendment and on the sub-
stitute were hand votes and do not permit analysis, some idea of
delegate positions on this issue may be gained from an examination
of the roll call vote on whether debate should be allowed on the
subject of school financing. As previously mentioned, the vote to
allow debate was seventy to twenty-nine with three passes. All Inde-
pendents and all blacks voted to allow reconsideration of the amend-
ment. Only five Democrats voted against reconsideration, but since
four of these were Chicago Democrats it would appear that this
was not a party issue. The three pass votes were registered by Law-
2 Albert Raby, in an interview with the author, August 31, 1970.
120 A Fundamental Goal
lor and by downstate Republicans Martin and Ozinga. Marolda
voted in opposition to reconsideration, but the remaining opposition
came from Republicans, the majority of whom were from suburban
or downstate districts with fine school systems. Again it would ap-
pear that on the issue of financing of the public schools geography
was the most important criterion.
The final vote to approve the education article at third reading,
as at second reading, was not unanimous. The tally was eighty-nine
in favor, ten opposed, and two passing. The two who passed, Gar-
rison and Friedrich, were conservative Republicans who had also
voted against reconsideration of the Netsch amendment. Of the ten
who voted against approval, five were other conservative Republi-
cans who had also voted against reconsideration of the Netsch
amendment. Of the remaining five, one was Marolda, who objected
to section 3 because of the ban on aid to nonpublic schools ; Lawlor
was not present for the vote but it can be assumed he would have
voted with Marolda. The other four negative votes were all Catho-
lic Democrats, presumably with the same objections as Marolda.
After third reading Style and Drafting made a minor revision in
the new finance section added to section 1 of the education article.
The final version read: "The State has the primary responsibility
for financing the system of public education," rather than "the sys-
tem of public educational institutions and services," as originally
written by Netsch. There were no other changes from the text of
the article after second reading. The final education article as it was
to be submitted to the people of Illinois read :
Article X. Education
Section 1 . Goal — Free Schools
A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the educa-
tional development of all persons to the limits of their capacities.
The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality
public educational institutions and services. Education in public
schools through the secondary level shall be free. There may be
such other free education as the General Assembly provides by
law.
The State has the primary responsibility for financing the sys-
tem of public education.
The Education Article at Second and Third Readings 121
Section 2. State Board of Education — Chief State Educational
Officer
(a) There is created a State Board of Education to be elected
or selected on a regional basis. The number of members, their
qualifications, terms of office and manner of election or selection
shall be provided by law. The Board, except as limited by law,
may establish goals, determine policies, provide for planning and
evaluating education programs and recommend financing. The
Board shall have such other duties and powers as provided by
law.
(b) The State Board of Education shall appoint a chief state
educational officer.
Section 3. Public Funds for Sectarian Purposes Forbidden
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, town-
ship, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make
any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, any-
thing in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support
or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or
other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or
sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation
of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the
State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any
sectarian purpose.
It is interesting that, as it turned out, the full convention tended
to react to each educational issue in the same manner as the major-
ity on the Education Committee had reacted. Where there had
been complete agreement in the committee, such as in the section
dealing with the state board of education, there was virtually no sig-
nificant change from the committee proposal at the full convention.
Where there had been some doubts raised, as in section 1 , the con-
vention also expressed doubts and somewhat altered the wording.
Where there was dissension, as over finance, there was too much
dissension in the convention to facilitate passage of a strong mea-
sure. Where there was fear, as in section 3, fear was expressed in
the full convention, and the section was left unchanged.
The committee had demonstrated its skill in assessing just how
much could be passed by the full convention, which in turn was
successful in its assessment of passage by the voters. In the two areas
122 A Fundamental Goal
of doubt in the committee — the use of the words "the paramount"
and the section on finance — the committee rightly judged that
pushing for strong language would result in a more desirable com-
promise at the full convention. All members of the committee ex-
pressed pleasure at the final outcome of their article — an article
which, with the exception of section 3, is simple and concise and yet
perhaps expresses the strongest commitment to education among
the fifty states.
Like the actions of the Education Committee, those of the full
convention can best be interpreted by the concept of a conflict over
the degree of change to be incorporated into the education article.
The full convention was unwilling to accept any provision of too
radical a nature; thus they rejected the words "the paramount" in
section 1 and the section on total state financing because they
wished to placate the voters. This desire for pacification of the
people was also the consideration that decided the outcome of the
section on aid to nonpublic schools despite the pressure applied by
the Chicago Democratic organization. In addition, the "nonpoliti-
cal" nature of education, as shown by the lack of party or bloc
voting in many educational areas at the convention and as indicated
by the delegates in interviews, helped to keep the delegates from
making further changes in the innovative nature of the article.
The full convention allowed the Education Committee to take
the lead on its article, unlike other committees which dealt with
more political subjects, and no delegate who was not on the Edu-
cation Committee was particularly influential in educational mat-
ters at the full convention. However, the Chicago Democratic
organization may be seen as an important influence on the issue
of aid to nonpublic schools. The fact that the convention looked to
the committee (or to part of the committee, as in the finance sec-
tion) as the experts on education — except perhaps for the Chicago
Catholics, who took their lead from the Democratic organization in
their position on aid to nonpublic schools — the fact that no one
wished to seem to vote against education, and the fact that the
education article as reported from committee was of an innovative
nature allowed the final article to retain much of its original strength
after the convention had completed its debates on the subject.
IX
Conclusions and Implications
With the ratification of the new constitution by the voters in De-
cember of 1970, Illinois obtained a new education article. That
article was not a significant factor in the passage of the entire docu-
ment; in fact, relatively little attention was given to education by
the press or by individuals or groups working for or against passage
of the proposed constitution. However, it is possible to speculate that
the 1970 education article may promote the most far-reaching
changes of any article in the new document — changes in the
method of financing education, in the scope of education, in the
very nature of the educational process in Illinois.
Section 1 of the article provides almost limitless possibilities for
increasing the scope of education, by calling for the education of all
people to "the limits of their capacities." This goal, when taken with
the sentence "Education in public schools through the secondary
level shall be free" can be interpreted to mean that adults as well as
those under twenty-one must receive education through the high
school level at no charge — a concept of educational responsibility
unique in this country.1 If the same reasoning holds true, the article
1 It is possible that the constitutions of Indiana and Georgia could be inter-
preted in this light. Indiana provides in Article VIII, section 1, for a system of
"Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open
to all." Georgia states in Article VIII, section 1 : "The provision of an adequate
education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia,
the expense of which shall be provided for by taxation." However, in Indiana
it is not likely that this section, written in 1851, was intended to apply to adults,
especially since it uses the term "Common Schools." In Georgia, the term "ade-
quate" might be seen as applying to much less than education through the sec-
ondary level.
123
124 ^ Fundamental Goal
apparently also requires that the physically and mentally handi-
capped be guaranteed an education to the limits of their capacities.
As mentioned in Chapter III, section i is being interpreted
broadly by some to include areas not previously considered to be
part of the educational system: One organization has called the
new constitution "an expression of the State's obligation to support
the arts beyond their inclusion in formal educational program, to
provide cultural opportunities to 'all persons to the limits of their
capacities.' "2 Researchers at the University of Chicago law and
education schools have been federally funded to investigate ways
of holding school systems legally accountable for failure to provide
students with a minimum education. Any suit to that effect in Illi-
nois would probably be brought on the basis of the phrase "to the
limits of their capacities."3
It was predicted at the convention that the sentence in section i ,
"The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system
of public education," would be a subject for legal challenge. By
September of 1973, the Illinois Supreme Court had already handed
down its first interpretation of that sentence. In Blase v. State,4 the
plaintiffs had sued to force the state to provide at least 50 percent of
the funds for Illinois's public school system, basing their suit on the
word "primary" in section 1 of the education article. Relying on the
transcripts of the 1970 convention, the court held that the sentence
on financing was merely hortatory — "that the sentence was in-
tended only to express a goal or objective, and not to state a specific
command."5
Yet, especially since 197 1, the issue of school financing has be-
come one of the most controversial in the educational arena. In
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez6 it was held
that Texas did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution by basing its school finance system upon local property
2 Illinois, Advisory Commission on Financing the Arts in Illinois, Report
(Chicago, 1971), p. 4.
3 In a recent article, Stephen Sugarman of the University of California Law
School described the progress of a suit against the San Francisco public schools
on the basis of similar language. School Review 82 (February 1974) : 233-59.
4 55 I11.2d 94, 302 N.E.2d 46, 1973.
5 Ibid., p. 98.
6 41 1 U.S. 1 (i973)-
Conclusions and Implications 125
taxes from districts of unequal wealth. This case is in direct contra-
diction to the now famous Serrano v. Priest1 decision of the Cali-
fornia Supreme Court, which in 1971 held the California school
finance system to be unconstitutional because it did discriminate
against the people in those districts with a poor tax base. While
Rodriguez would seem to settle the issue of whether state school
financing systems violate the federal equal protection clause, it does
not preclude challenges on the state level. For example, Serrano is
considered to have been decided on the basis of the California equal
protection clause, and is thus apparently still binding within that
state despite Rodriguez. In 1972, the Michigan Supreme Court
relied on its own state constitution to reach a decision similar to
Serrano in the case of Governor v. State Treasurer.8 Property tax
systems for the financing of public schools have also been struck
down by state courts on grounds other than equal protection. For
example, a New Jersey court declared that state's school financing
system unconstitutional because it did not meet the requirement of
a "thorough and efficient" school system in the New Jersey
Constitution.9
Delegate Malcolm Kamin has recently speculated, however, that
the school financing language in the Illinois Constitution may be
an impediment to court reform of educational finance :
If the Illinois school financing system is further challenged in the
courts, the new equal protection clause in the Illinois Bill of
Rights, together with the 'efficient system' language of the Educa-
tional Article, should compel a Serrano-like result. Such a result
could fail to materialize solely because an Illinois court reasons
that the convention, having addressed itself to school finance in
the last sentence of section 1 of article X, did not intend any other
provisions of the new constitution to control school financing.
That would be a strong blow to the advocates of equal educa-
tional opportunity [since the sentence in section one has been
7 5 Cal.3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971).
8 389 Mich. 1, 203 N.W.2d 457 (1972).
9 Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273 (1973). Illinois's phrase,
"The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educa-
tional institutions and services," is in the same vein and may be the basis of a
similar challenge.
126 A Fundamental Goal
termed merely hortatory]. Yet, such reasoning is not beyond the
range of possibility.10
Kamin continues :
Hopefully, such a case will not be necessary. If the legislature and
the new State Board of Education will take the school financing
language for what it is — the statement of a pressing problem
and the urgent prayer for a fair solution — then they will act
to equalize educational opportunity and the tax burdens of edu-
cational financing without further judicial intervention.11
The action (or non-action) taken by the convention which
proved most significant in securing passage of the constitution may
have been its decision to leave section 3 on aid to nonpublic schools
unchanged. Experts testifying to the Education Committee, as well
as most of the members themselves, came to the conclusion that the
United States Supreme Court — in the light of such decisions as
Allen12 — would be likely to interpret the Illinois ban more loosely
than would appear warranted on its face. Thus were advocates of
more aid to nonpublic schools placated at the convention by the
retention of section 3, whereas opponents of aid, who recognized
the difficulty of creating stronger language, hoped the section would
be strictly interpreted. Had the convention changed section 3,
by making it either weaker or stronger, the heated controversy
necessarily engendered might have proven detrimental to the pass-
age of the entire constitution : this was the one educational issue on
which emotions were high and interest group pressure could have
been strong.
Moreover, any controversy engendered by an attempt to loosen
the ban would apparently have been futile, for in 1971 the United
States Supreme Court, in Lemon v. Kurtzman*3 seemed to provide
a definitive "no" to questions of aiding nonpublic schools. The de-
cision — which apparently bars even parental vouchers and systems
designed to reimburse teachers of secular subjects in nonpublic
10 "The School Finance Language of the Education Article: The Chimerical
Mandate," John Marshall Journal of Practice and Procedure 6 (Spring, 1973) :
33i-
11 Ibid., p. 345.
12 Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968). See Chapter V, supra.
13 403 U.S. 602 (1971 ).
Conclusions and Implications 127
schools — was unexpected. Most experts thought the interpretation
of the court would be more liberal. In fact, the 1971 Illinois legisla-
ture had passed a bill allowing certain kinds of aid for nonpublic
schools. However, after Lemon, all such attempts seem futile.14
Thus, in taking no action on the question, the convention avoided
what might have been a needless defeat of the whole document.
The Politics of Education
That there exists an intimate relationship between education and
politics was unthinkable until recently. Politics to most people con-
jures up images of wheeling and dealing, of under-the-table payoffs,
of patronage, spoils, and flamboyant oratory with no substance.
Educators struggled to keep education untainted by anything polit-
ical : the public schools as the bastion of democracy had to remain
"above" politics; education was described as a unique function of
government which merited special treatment.
Gradually this attitude has become eroded. Professional educa-
tors as well as the general public have realized that since more
public money is spent for education than for any other single func-
tion of state and local governments, decision making on this subject
is of necessity going to be political — a reflection of competition
and compromise between various interest groups and power fac-
tions. And yet, at the constitutional convention one still heard such
comments as "Politics and education don't mix" and "I am not
being political on this subject, but . . ." or such contradictions as
"My constituents insist that politics be kept out of education but
that their interests be represented."
As mentioned in Chapter I, one of the reasons given for not
wanting to serve on the Education Committee at Con-Con was
that it would be the least political and thus the least important of
the committees. Such was not the case, either in process or in prod-
uct. The Education Committee, in its day-to-day workings, was
extremely political. Conflicts over reform versus the status quo gave
rise to factions and to political gamesmanship. Issues were decided
14 More recently, the United States Supreme Court struck down other plans
for providing aid to nonpublic schools in Committee for Public Education &
Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973).
128 A Fundamental Goal
finally by compromise, a familiar procedure in the political process.
On the issue of financing, where the committee failed to reach
compromise, it was the desire of certain members not to vote with
the "opponent" which permitted the presentation of full state fi-
nancing to the convention; this, in turn, created a situation in which
compromise was necessary among all of the delegates on the fi-
nancing issue.
The decision to keep the convention open — to permit public
attendance at all meetings, to make debate and votes available for
scrutiny, and to involve the citizens in the convention process
through public hearings — was in reality a very "politic" scheme
formulated to assure passage of the charter. Because of this open-
ness, the public became aware of the omission of the word "free"
from section i of the education article and was able to apply pres-
sure toward eventual compromise — a very political process. At the
full convention the fact that votes were recorded and often pub-
lished made the delegates, especially those with political ambitions,
hesitant to risk irritating their constituents by appearing to vote
against education. Thus it is likely that the resulting education
article was more innovative than it would have been had delegate
debate and votes not been available to the public.
The state board of education created by the convention was a
political product. Its implementation by the legislature and its func-
tions after implementation have been or will be political. The legis-
lature took almost two years to agree on language establishing the
board, debating again and again questions like those which had
plagued the committee: should members be elected or appointed?
If appointed, by whom and on what basis? If elected, from what
regions? When they did pass a bill creating a board of seventeen
members, the governor — who was given the power of appoint-
ment — had to give significant attention to balancing political party
and interest group affiliation. The board itself is still all potential
at this moment. But because this body will be dealing with a politi-
cal subject, that of education, various questions arise as to its future:
Will it become factionalized along party lines? Will it be conserva-
tive or innovative in nature? Will it lead or follow the legislature?
Will it become a forum for the interest groups with power in the
state? Or will it attempt to isolate itself from such segments? What
Conclusions and Implications 129
will be its relationship to established local boards? Will it handle
such controversial issues as the accountability of teachers, equal
educational opportunity, teacher militancy, and the financing of
education, or leave those questions to the local school boards? If it
does attack the controversial issues, what will be its general direction
in deciding them? The answers are unknown as of this writing, but
the answers, like the questions, will not be apolitical.
No longer can professional educators afford to maintain that
education is separate from or "above" politics, that it is educators
alone who can serve the public interest in this area. Politics, in the
general sense, refers to the methods by which social values and fi-
nancial resources are allocated for different purposes and among
different people. In Illinois various interest groups are banding
together to influence these values and the allocation of these re-
sources: parents are demanding that teachers be held accountable
for what students do or do not learn; teachers are becoming mili-
tant: strikes, unheard of a decade ago, are now commonplace; the
Illinois Education Association, representing many of Illinois's teach-
ers, is endorsing political candidates and helping to finance their
campaigns; students themselves are organizing to obtain rights not
previously granted them. Rather than abstaining from politics, indi-
viduals and groups with a vested interest in education must instead
become skilled practitioners of politics, employing all of its most
useful tools, and engaging in all of its traditional practices. They
must compromise, bargain, wheel and deal, and meet in lots of
closed, smoke-filled rooms where the real business of education is
being discussed. The creation of the education article of the new
Illinois Constitution shows that education and politics can and will
mix.
Index
Abel, Tony, 6n, 43
Advisory Committee on Financing the
Arts in Illinois, 47, 12471
Aid to nonpublic schools, 10, 12, 61-
62, 120, 126-27; and the Catholic
Church, 55-63, 64, 70; committee
deliberations on, 45, 68-71, 92-93;
in 1870 Illinois Constitution, 54,
56-58, 61, 63, 64-65, 69-71; first
reading, 92-98; member proposals
on, 63 ; as most important Education
Committee issue, 4, 6, 14, 15, 18,
62; and prayer, 11 2-1 3; and reli-
gions of delegates, 12, 69, 96-97,
1 13-14, 122; second reading, 110,
1 12-14; and separate submission on
ballot, 69, 94-95; and taxation, 55,
68, 95; testimony on, 63-68, 94;
text in constitution, 121; third read-
ing, 1 16-22
Alexander, John, 5, 105
American Republican Party, 62
Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, 97
Arrigo, Victor, 97
Bakalis, Michael, 64
Beecher, Lyman, 57
Bentz, Robert, 51
Bill of Rights Committee, 5, 1 7, 63
Blaine, James, 60-61
Blase v. State, 1 iQn, 124
Board of Education v. Allen, 66, 126
Board of Higher Education. See Illi-
nois Board of Higher Education
Bottino, Louis, 10, 22; and aid to non-
public schools, 69 ; and committee
factions, 10, 78; and educational
objectives, 39, 41-42; and financing
of education, 10, 76-77, 80, 100,
103-4, 1 1 4-1 5; and higher educa-
tion, 50-52; and state board of edu-
cation, 31, 32, 51-52
Braden, George, 7071
Browne, Richard, 11, 1571, 20, 25, 31,
40-41, 6971
Buford, J. Lester, 9-10, 22; and aid to
nonpublic schools, 69; and commit-
tee factions, 10, 45 ; and educational
objectives, 39-40, 42-43, 45-46;
and financing of education, 77, 80,
1 00-2 ; and higher education, 50-
51 ; knowledgeable about education,
13, 18; and state board of educa-
tion, 31, 32-33, 51,87, 9071
Bureau of the Budget, 75
Buresh, Jane, 5771
Burns, J. A., 5771
Butler, Robert, 88-90, 91, 1 1 1
California Constitution, 76, 125
Catholic school system, 55
Chicago Board of Education, 21, 75,
9i
Chicago Daily News, 571
Chicago Democrats, 1 2 ; and aid to
nonpublic schools, 96, 1 13-14, 117,
122; and financing of education,
1 06, 119; and state board of educa-
tion, 89-90, 1 12
Chicago Sun-Times, 571
Chicago Today, 571
Chicago Tribune, 571, 106-7
Chief state educational officer. See
Superintendent of public instruction
Christian Action Ministry, 64
131
132
A Fundamental Goal
Citizens for Educational Freedom, 65
Citizens Schools Committee, 64
Cohn, Rubin, yon
Coleman, Charles, gon, 1 13
Committee for Public Education and
Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 127/1
Common school education, 34-37
Conference on a State Board of Edu-
cation and an Appointive Superin-
tendent, 30
Conflicts of interest, 21-22
Consolidation of school districts, 36
Constitution Research Group, 15
Constitution Study Commission, 5, 6,
12, 15
County superintendents of schools, 22
Cullerton, P. J., 21
Daley, Richard J., 11, 42
Daley, Richard M., 97
Davis, David, 85, 90, 99
DeBoer, Peter, 5771
Dove, Franklin, 7, 8; and aid to non-
public schools, 68-69; and commit-
tee factions, '7, 44, 78; and educa-
tional objectives, 39-40, 43-45 ; and
financing of education, 77-78, 80-
81, 89, 98-101, 10771, 115, 118;
and higher education, 50-51 ; and
state board of education, 31, 32-33,
5i
Downen, Clifford, 86
Dunn v. Chicago Industrial School for
Girls, 65
Durr, Wendell, 90-91
Education Committee: composition of,
6—13; deliberation procedures of,
15-20; and lobbying, 18, 108; wit-
nesses, 17. See also Old Guard;
Young Turks
Educational Development Cooperative,
37
Educational establishment, 10, 11
Educational objectives, 14-15, 19, 20,
123-24; committee deliberations on,
33) 38-47; in 1870 Illinois Consti-
tution, 34-38; first reading, 83-87;
and free schools, 41-47, 84, 128;
and fundamental-paramount goal
controversy, 41-42, 84-87, 107,
122; and higher education, 38, 52-
53; member proposals on, 37-38;
and scope of education, 35-38, 40-
41, 46, 123; second reading, 109;
and state board of education, 52;
testimony on, 38 ; text in constitu-
tion, 120
Educational system, structure of. See
State board of education ; Structure
of educational system
Efficiency and Economy Committee,
25
Elward, Paul, 9071, 97, 112, 116
Erickson, Donald, 5571, 6271
Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago,
64
Evans, Anne, 10, 11, 13; and aid to
nonpublic schools, 69 ; and commit-
tee factions, 10; and educational
objectives, 39; and financing of ed-
ucation, 77, 80, 100-2; and state
board of education, 2971, 31, 32, 52,
87
Executive Committee, 5, 1 7, 28
Federal Constitution. See United
States Constitution
Financing of education, 4, 10, 72, 122,
123-26; committee deliberations on,
76-81, 128; in 1870 Illinois Consti-
tution, 18, 20-21, 54, 57, 63, 69-71,
98-100; and equality of opportu-
nity, 39, 75, 79, 101, 104-5, u8,
125-26; and federal grants, 73, 104;
first reading, 82-83, IO°-7; ar>d
foundation level funding, 7271, 74;
and full state funding, 74-81, 101,
119, 122; member proposals on, 63,
74-75 ; and personal property tax,
101, 105; primary responsibility of
state for, 75, 1 14-15, 117-20, 124;
public reaction on, 4, 79, 106-7;
and public school property, 20-21,
98-99; and real property tax, 55,
73-75, 99, 102-5, n8, 124-25; sec-
ond reading, 1 14-16; and tax free
property, 79, 99; testimony on, 75;
Index
133
text in constitution, 120; third read-
ing, 116-20. See also Free schools;
Higher education, financing of
First Amendment. See United States
Constitution
Florida Constitution, 62
Fogal, William, 8, 10; and aid to non-
public schools, 68-69 ; and commit-
tee factions, 8, 44; and educational
objectives, 39, 41, 45~47, 83-84;
and financing of education, 77-78,
80, 99-101, 118; and state board
of education, 31,51
Foster, Leonard, 105, 106, 116
Fourteenth Amendment. See United
States Constitution
Frankfurter, Felix, 56
Free schools, 34-36, 38, 50, 76, 82-
84, 109, 123; and composition of
Education Committee, 40-47
Friedrich, Dwight, 27, 97, III, 120
Garrison, Ray, 97, 116, 120
General Government Committee, 5
Georgia Constitution, 1230
Gierach, James, 97
Gove, Samuel K., 6, 30, 51
Governor v. State Treasurer, 125
Grant, Ulysses S., 60
Green, Henry, 1 1 1
Hanrahan, Robert, 30
Hawaii Constitution, 62
Henry, David Dodds, 5 1
Hickrod, G. Alan, 76
Higher education, 6, 18, 20, 38, 48;
committee deliberations on, 50-53 ;
financing of, 35, 45-46, 83-84;
member proposals on, 48—52 ; and
state board of education, 29-32, 40,
87-88; testimony on, 51-52. See
also Educational objectives, and
higher education
Hillman, Jordon Jay, 64
Howard, Betty, 8-9, 13; and aid to
nonpublic schools, 68; and commit-
tee factions, 8, 44, 105; and edu-
cational objectives, 39-42, 44-45;
and financing of education, 77-78,
80, 92-93, 99-ioi, 105, 118; and
higher education, 50-51; and state
board of education, 31, 32, 51
Hubbard, Thomas, 64
Illinois Agricultural Association, 5
Illinois Association of School Adminis-
trators, 49, 64, 76
Illinois Association of School Boards,
38,75
Illinois Board of Higher Education, 9,
11, 50, 52, 75; Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee on Con-Con, 51 ; Citi-
zens Advisory Committee, 9
Illinois Board of Regents, 9
Illinois Catholic Conference, 18, 55,
70, 114
Illinois Communist Party, 5
Illinois Congress of Parents and Teach-
ers, ion, 18, 28, 64, 70
Illinois Council of Churches, 64
Illinois Education Association, 1 7,
1 29 ; and aid to nonpublic schools,
64, 70; and educational establish-
ment, ion; and financing of educa-
tion, 75 ; and state board of edu-
cation, 30
Illinois Federation of Teachers, 27,
64,87
Illinois General Assembly, 4, 5, 12, 23,
99; and aid to nonpublic schools, 4,
54) 56, 58, 127; and educational
objectives, 34, 36, 42, 46, 84; and
financing of education, 72, 76, 80,
102-5, ii4-i5j 126; and higher
education, 48-50, 52; and local
control of education, 101 ; and state
board of education, 24, 28-32, 87,
89-90, 92, 108, 1 1 0-12, 128
Illinois ex rel. McCullom v. Board of
Education, $6n
Illinois School Building Commission,
24-25, 75
Illinois School Problems Commission,
ion, 23-25
Illinois State Chamber of Commerce,
18, 30, 64, 108
Illinois Task Force on Education, 23,
25
J34
A Fundamental Goal
Independent Democratic Coalition, 5
Independent Precinct Organization, 5
Independent Voters of Illinois, 5, 64
Indiana Constitution, 12371
Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A., 64
Johnson, Eldon, 51
Johnson, Stanley, 85
Judiciary Committee, 5
Kamin, Malcolm F., 7-8; and aid to
nonpublic schools, 69, 92-96, 1 1 7—
18; and committee factions, 7, 19,
32, 44-46, 78; and educational ob-
jectives, 39-41, 43, 44-46; and fi-
nancing of education, 7571, 77-78, 80,
100-1, 103-4, 107", 115, 125-26;
and state board of education, 31-32,
51-53,88-89, 91
Kemp, James, 1 1 3
Kenney, David, 89
Kerner, Otto, 23
Kinney, Helen, 92, 97, 105
Know Nothing Party, 6 1
Knuppel, John, 97
Kurland, Philip, 65
Kucera, Daniel, 5671
Laurino, William, 97
Lawler, Francis: and aid to nonpublic
schools, 95, 112-13, 1 1 6—1 7 ; and
financing of education, 105, 119-20
League of Women Voters, 29, 39, 64
Legislative Committee, 5
Legislature. See Illinois General As-
sembly
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 126—27
Lennon, Arthur, 94, 95-96, 97
Lewis, George, 86
Local control of education, 79-80, 88,
101-2, 104, 1 19
Local Government Committee, 5, 13
Louisiana Commission for Needy Chil-
dren v. Poindexter, 6771
Lyons, Thomas, 5, 97
McCracken, Thomas, 21, 99
Madaus, George, 6371
Madigan, Michael, 86, 95, 97
Mann, Horace, 37
Marolda, Louis, 105, 116, 120
Martin, Samuel, 120
Maryland Constitution, 62
Mathias, Paul, 9; and aid to nonpub-
lic schools, 69 ; and committee fac-
tions, 9, 1571, 44; and educational
objectives, 39, 41, 8671; and financ-
ing of education, 77-78, 80, 100-2,
104, 1 18-19; and higher education,
49) 5 1—53 ; and state board of edu-
cation, 30-31, 32, 1 10-1 1
Metropolitan Chicago Baptist Associa-
tion, 64
Michigan Constitution, 62, 125
Miller, Thomas, 94
Miska, Leonard, 97
Model State Constitution, 36
National Municipal League, 3672
National Socialist Alliance, 5
Netsch, Dawn Clark, 1 14-15, 11 7-1 9,
120
New Jersey Constitution, 62, 125
New York Constitution, 68
Nicholson, Odas, 5, 1 1 3
Nudelman, Harold, 113, 114
Objectives of education. See Educa-
tional objectives
Ogilvie, Richard, 7871
Oklahoma Constitution, 76
Old Guard, 6, 18; composition of, 9-
11, 42, 44; and educational objec-
tives, 14-15, 19, 38, 53; and financ-
ing of education, 42-47, 77-78, 80
Ozinga, Martin, 1 20
Page, Ray, 23, 30, 64
Pappas, Mary, 85
Parker, Clyde, 11, 13; and aid to non-
public schools, 96-97 ; and com-
mittee factions, 1 1, 77-78; and edu-
cational objectives, 39, 41-43; and
financing of education, 77-78, 80,
100, 102; knowledgeable about edu-
cation, 13, 18; and state board of
education, 31, 32-33, 51, 108, 110-
1 1
Index
135
Parochiaid. See Aid to nonpublic
schools
Patch, Samuel, 8 ; and aid to nonpub-
lic schools, 68-69, 9671, 117; and
committee factions, 8, 43, 44; and
education for minority groups, 13,
38-40; and educational objectives,
46, 83, 85-86; and financing of edu-
cation, 77-78, 80, 100; and higher
education, 50-51 ; and state board
of education, 31, 32-33, 4*> 5i> 9°
Pfeffer, Leo, 6 1 n
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 61
Poindexter v. Louisiana Financial As-
sistance Commission. See Louisiana
Commission for Needy Children v.
Poindexter
Political gamesmanship, 78, 80, 127.
See also Old Guard ; Young Turks
Politics of education, 29, 90, 92, 122,
127-29
Presbyterian Settlement House, 64
Protestants and Other Americans
United for the Separation of Church
and State, 65, 97
Public Information Committee, 6
Pughsley, Gloria, 9, 1 15-16; and com-
mittee factions, 9, 19, 43, 79; and
education for minority groups, 13,
38-40; and financing of education,
77, 80, 100, 119; and state board of
education, 31, 1 10
Raby, Albert, 2971, 1 18-19, Il9n
Redmond, James, 64
Religion in public schools, 56, 57-60
Revenue and Finance Committee, 5,
13
Rhode Island Constitution, 62
Richards v. Raymond, 35-36
Rigney, Harlan, 106
Robinson v. Cahill, 12571
Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent
School District, 7271
Rosewell, Edward, 116
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 14
Rules and Credentials Committee, 5-6
San Antonio Independent School Dis-
trict v. Rodriguez, 124-25
School district organization, 36
Segar v. Board of Education, 36
Separation of church and state, 55, 60,
66, 93, 96
Serrano v. Priest, 7271, 125
Seventh Day Adventist Church, 64
Sixth Illinois Constitutional Conven-
tion: delegates to, 4-5, 12-13;
open nature of, 16, 128; procedures
and decision process of, 15-17
Smith, Elbert, 5
Smith, Ronald, 1 1 7
Stahl, David, 89
State board of education, 4, 23, 27,
102, 108, in; committee delibera-
tions on, 31-33; first reading, 87-
92 ; functions of, 24-25 ; independent
powers of, 108, 110-11; jurisdiction
of, 29-32, 50-53, 87-88; selection
of members of, 25-29, 32-33, 87-92,
107-8, 111, 128-29; member pro-
posals on, 26-27, 30-31; political
implications of, 91, 128-29; second
reading, 109-12; in states other than
Illinois, 25-26; and superintendent
of public instruction, 25-26, 88,
hi— 12; testimony on, 28, 30; text
in constitution, 121
Stokes, Anson Phelps, 6m
Structure of educational system, 20.
See also State board of education
Strunk, James, 97
Style, Drafting and Submission Com-
mittee, 6, 17, 108-10, 115, 119-20
Suffrage and Constitutional Amend-
ment Committee, 5
Sugarman, Stephen, 12471
Superboard, 32, 41, 51-52. See also
Higher education, and state board
of education; State board of educa-
tion, jurisdiction of
Superintendent of educational service
region, 22
Superintendent of public instruction,
4, 23-24, 75, 87, 1 1 1 ; selection of,
25, 27-28, 88, 91-92, 111; member
proposals on, 26. See also State
board of education
136
A Fundamental Goal
Superintendents Round Table of
Northern Illinois, 64
Temporary' Rules Committee, 5
Texas school finance system, 124
Third Unitarian Church of Chicago,
64
Thompson, James, 9071, 97, 106, 116
Tomei, Peter, 2971, 97, 113, 117
Traverse City School District v. At-
torney General, 6an
Tuchow, Martin, 97
United States Constitution, 3, 65-66,
70, 92-93, 96, 124
University of Chicago, 1 24
University of Illinois, 51
Urban League, 29
WCIA-TV, 6, 43
Weisberg, Bernard, 96-97
Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chi-
cago, 18, 64, 7571, 76, 108
Whalen, Wayne, 29/1
Witwer, Samuel W., 5, 7, 9; and aid
to nonpublic schools, 6 ; and mem-
ber proposals, 1 5
Young, Charles, 97
Young Turks, 10, 11; composition of,
6-9, 44; and educational objectives,
14-15, 18-19, 38, 53; and financing
of education, 42-47, 78-80, 105;
and state board of education, 32-33,
5i
7200-SI5
PB-31
C
BT
Studies in Illinois (
Edited by Josej
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA
379 14B89F197S C003
FROM TH A FUNDAMENTAL GOAL: EDUCATION FOR THE PE
$345
12 025306777
A FUNDAMENTAL GOAL
Education for the People of Illinois
Jane Galloway Buresh
With the ratification of the new constitution by the voters in December,
1970, Illinois obtained a new education article. Although this article
received little publicity, Jane Buresh maintains that it may well pro-
mote the most far-reaching changes of any article in the new document
— changes in the method of financing education, the scope of educa-
tion, and the very nature of the educational process itself.
In the only source which sets down the motivations, opinions, out-
side influences, and group pressures which bore on the Committee of
Education at the 1969-70 Constitutional Convention, Buresh provides
a summary of the debates, research, and proposals of both the com-
mittee and the convention at large. Basing her study on interviews with
the delegates themselves, she analyzes the conflict between the forces
of reform and status quo which operated at the convention in light of
the concept of "political gamesmanship" and explains the delegates'
overriding desire to "placate" the voters. She also supplies a historical
background on other conventions in Illinois, including details of each
educational issue.
Throughout the volume, emphasis is placed upon the nature of edu-
cation, which many at the convention attempted to maintain as "non-
political." Buresh concludes, however, that education is, in fact, a very
political issue : "Individuals and groups with a vested interest in educa-
tion must become skilled practitioners of politics, employing all of its
most useful tools and engaging in all of its traditional practices. They
must compromise, bargain, wheel and deal, and meet in lots of closed,
smoke-filled rooms, where the real business of education is being
discussed."
Jane Galloway Buresh is visiting assistant professor of policy studies
at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.
University of Illinois Press Urbana Chicago London
isbn 0-252-00457-4