Skip to main content

Full text of "A fundamental goal: education for the people of Illinois"

See other formats


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. 



© x 975 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 achi e v e this goal, it shall b e the duty of th e Stat e 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 s e lected 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. Rodriguez 6 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. Priest 1 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 
Allen 12 — 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; an d 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, ii 4 -i 5j 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 



J 34 



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; an d 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, Il 9 n 
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