The Father of the School Choice Movement
Saved in:
| Title: | The Father of the School Choice Movement |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | James V. Shuls |
| Source: | Journal of School Choice. 2024 18(3):334-350. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | School Choice, Educational History, College Faculty, Educational Finance, Educational Vouchers, Equal Education, Academic Freedom, Student Rights, Parent Rights, State Church Separation, Religion, Private Schools |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15582159.2024.2375164 |
| ISSN: | 1558-2159 1558-2167 |
| Abstract: | Milton Friedman is widely considered the intellectual father of the school choice movement. While Friedman deserves much credit, Father Virgil Blum stands out as an influential figure in the nascent school choice movement. Using archival research, this paper examines Blum's contributions to the movement. From his 1954 doctoral dissertation, which made the legal case for funding religious schools, to his 1958 book, Freedom of Choice in Education, and his decades-long career as a professor, Blum was a tireless advocate for educational freedom. While Friedman made the market argument, Blum made the legal, moral, and religious freedom arguments for school choice. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1439437 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHoVj1DP9voOW1HUSFzlSutAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDC-0pulbAb_V3AAC_wIBEICBm6Dia2YidkWC_3zP_mkSLruTQ8rQucanS8CJIc11_q7ErHgFVMBNVaFH11gF9UzzKJx1MvjL10wCdCSgGDiMyvyQoamnBjZBvpWWGaqRmrnI2A9N5bEjt2WwZ-6CuBrTQXT3kWbr-UamnAq47G1lO1ekoAGoi3kMSg4hHYcOujt8AERuPFZlRYA2_VRjnf1VEat5tNHynV7azcHl Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0179637760;[2y6a]01jul.24;2024Sep17.05:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179637760-1">The Father of the School Choice Movement </title> <p>Milton Friedman is widely considered the intellectual father of the school choice movement. While Friedman deserves much credit, Father Virgil Blum stands out as an influential figure in the nascent school choice movement. Using archival research, this paper examines Blum's contributions to the movement. From his 1954 doctoral dissertation, which made the legal case for funding religious schools, to his 1958 book, Freedom of Choice in Education, and his decades-long career as a professor, Blum was a tireless advocate for educational freedom. While Friedman made the market argument, Blum made the legal, moral, and religious freedom arguments for school choice.</p> <p>Keywords: archival research; History of education; school choice</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-2">Introduction: The Story We Think We Know</hd> <p>In the runup to the 2024 presidential election, hopeful candidate Nikki Haley was asked a simple question – "What was the cause of the United States' Civil War?" Her initial response was sarcastic, "Well, don't come with an easy question." By all accounts, Haley botched the answer because this is an easy question with a simple answer – slavery. At least, we have come to understand it as a simple question with a simple answer. Indeed, when it comes to understanding history, we are prone to think in terms of simple answers. What caused World War I? The assassination of the archduke Franz Ferdinand. What caused World War II? Germany's invasion of Poland. However, the truth is history is complicated with many intertwining narratives. Yes, slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but there was also the growing tension between different economic systems, westward expansion, and the balance of power in the United States government. Reams of books have been written on the topic; nevertheless, we like the simple answer.</p> <p>This is not to say the simple answer is wrong. Rather, that the simple answer allows us to forget some incredibly important details, stories, and figures that helped shape our history. A similar thing has happened in the world of school choice. We have accepted a narrative that goes something like this: In 1955, Milton Friedman wrote <emph>The Role of Government in Education</emph> in which he argued that government funding of education does not necessitate government supply of education. Friedman offered a free-market vision of how public education could be supplied via a voucher system that allowed individuals to choose among various providers. Fast forward to 1990 and Milwaukee implemented the first modern voucher system following the vision set by Friedman. Who is the father of the school choice movement? Milton Friedman.</p> <p>At the time of this writing, a Google Scholar search with the terms "Milton Friedman" &amp; "Father" &amp; "School Choice" yields over 1,300 results. Replace "School Choice" with "Voucher" and it grows to over 1,500. If you search for the phrase "Father of School Choice," you will get 36 results. All of them are about Friedman ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>While we cannot downplay the incredible importance of Milton Friedman and his work in shaping the future of the school choice movement, our view of this history is too simple. The fact is the fundamental push for educational freedom, which is the heart of the school choice movement, predated Friedman. And, even if we restrict our timeframe to examine just the period from the 1950s to today, Friedman is not the only influential voice vying for the title of "father." Indeed, we cannot fully understand the movement and the push for school choice policies of today without knowing something about another influential voice – Father Virgil Blum.</p> <p>In this paper, I use archival research to examine the life and writing of Father Blum and his foundational work in launching the school choice movement. Blum was a longtime professor of political science at Marquette University. His personal papers are held in the <emph>Rev. Virgil C. Blum, S.J, Papers</emph> in the Raynor Memorial Libraries at Marquette University. Blum was inspirational in launching the nation's first grass roots school choice organization, Citizens for Educational Freedom (Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]). The archives of Citizens for Educational Freedom are held in the St. Louis Mercantile Library at the University of Missouri – St. Louis. Blum's doctoral dissertation is held at the Pius XII Memorial Library at Saint Louis University.</p> <p>Though Blum was a prodigious writer on the topic of educational freedom, his work is not widely known. In his doctoral dissertation on the life and work of Virgil Blum, William Fliss ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>]) noted, "The academician Friedman dealt with the political economy of vouchers while Blum the activist concentrated on the constitutional issues and sought to mobilize support for vouchers at the grassroots" (p. 164). Fliss ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]) described Blum's work this way:</p> <p>In his lifetime, Blum produced hundreds of articles, speeches, and newspaper columns about educational topics, most having to do with public funding for children attending non-public schools. He published additional books in later years, but they tended to be glorified pamphlets, averaging perhaps 100 pages in length and lacking citations. Over time, Blum came to resemble a pamphleteer of the American Revolutionary era, firing off his literary broadsides into the public square.</p> <p>(p. 164)</p> <p>At one point in time, Blum was credited as the progenitor of the modern voucher movement (Childs, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]; La Noue &amp; Pilo, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; Landis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]). In 1971, for example, La Noue ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]) wrote, "The first of the modern voucher concepts was created by Father Virgil C. Blum, a Jesuit political scientist at Marquette University" (p. 311). Today, Blum gets very little credit or recognition for his role in shaping the school choice movement. While a Google Scholar search for Milton Friedman generates over 152,000 hits, "Virgil Blum" generates just 137. Include the term "Father" – keep in mind that he was a <emph>Father</emph>—and the results dwindle to less than 60. Include "school choice" and they drop to less than 30.</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-3">Who Was Father Virgil Blum?</hd> <p>Father Blum was a contemporary of Milton Friedman, though his formation and support for school choice grew out of different motivations. Freidman was born in July, 1912, Blum less than a year later in March, 1913. Friedman, the son of Jewish immigrants, grew up on the east coast and pursued degrees in economics. His push for school choice centered around free-market concepts of choice and competition. Blum, on the other hand, was the grandson of German Catholic immigrants. He grew up in the Midwest and pursued degrees in political science. He was, first and foremost, a Jesuit. His motivation for supporting educational freedom was grounded in his Catholic faith. Though Blum was eventually influenced by Friedman's work, this influence is not clear in his initial foray and writings about educational freedom.</p> <p>Blum's intellectual formation took place in Jesuit institutions, first at St. Stanislaus Seminary in Florissant, Missouri, where he completed a bachelor's degree in Latin and English in 1937, and then at nearby Saint Louis University. At SLU, he earned a Master's degree in history and political science in 1945 and a Ph.D. in political science in 1954. After a short stint at Creighton University, Blum successfully petitioned for a transfer to Marquette University, where he served as a professor of political science from 1956 until his retirement in 1978. Blum remained active in religious civil rights causes until his death in 1990.</p> <p>From the outset of his professional career, Blum was focused on expanding educational freedom. "For more than ten years" he wrote in a March 17, 1955 letter to the Father Provincial, "I have been intensely interested in the problem of securing the rights of parochial school children." His focus was not on personal acclaim, but in motivating Catholics to take up the cause of defending and advocating for their rights. On March 19, 1952, Blum wrote to James O'Neill, chairman of the Department of Speech at Brooklyn College and author of O'Neill ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]) for feedback on his proposed dissertation topic. Blum's proposal had five points:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The First Amendment to the Federal Constitution (with reference to religion) has an [sic] its purpose the securing of personal religious freedom.</item> <p></p> <item> The denial to the Federal Government of the right to establish a (national) religion was intended as being purely instrumental to the securing of personal religious liberty.</item> <p></p> <item> The principle of the complete and absolute separation of Church and state as currently emphasized is a false interpretation of the amendment.</item> <p></p> <item> The First Amendment, as now generally interpreted by the Federal Courts, has, in many cases, worked to the denial of that religious freedom guaranteed by the amendment. State courts, under the same limitation by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, have, on many occasions, been guilty of the same violation of personal religious liberty.</item> <p></p> <item> Children who exercise their rights under the First Amendment to attend parochial schools are as a consequence denied the benefits of welfare legislation as, for example, bus transportation are deprived of equality under the law and the equal protection of the laws.</item> </ulist> <p>In 1954, Blum would defend his dissertation, <emph>Legal Aspects of Equality and Religious Liberty</emph>, which was written largely along these lines.</p> <p>Blum completed his dissertation a year before Friedman's famous work outlining the concept of vouchers. Blum does not discuss vouchers, or certificates as it was sometimes known, but rather focused on the principle of funding for religious schools within specific examples, such as busses and purchasing of textbooks. In many ways, his arguments were precursors to the arguments that would ultimately win the day decades later. Blum would later embrace the voucher or certificate plan and continue to make the legal case for public funding of religious schools.</p> <p>Blum's earliest connection to Friedman may have come in 1950. During his master's program, Blum spent one year studying at the University of Chicago where Friedman was a professor. However, it is not clear the extent to which the two interacted at the time. Subsequent correspondence between the two is rare and hints that they were not well acquainted. Blum appears to have first written to Friedman on November 20, ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>]) "at the suggestion of Mr. Alain Enthoven." In an earlier letter to Blum (November 8, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]), Enthoven, a Stanford Economist, wrote:</p> <p>My main purpose in writing is to tell you that there are economists, myself included, who are seriously interested in the proposal you defend. We are in a minority, but we are not on the lunatic fringe of the profession ....let me suggest that you send one to Prof. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago Economics Department.</p> <p>When Blum wrote to Friedman on November 20, 1957, he shared an article he had written for <emph>Homiletic and Pastoral Review</emph>. Not hinting at any personal connection, Blum wrote:</p> <p>I read your very fine article on the role of government in education in <emph>Economics and the Public Interest</emph> and found your ideas both stimulating and elucidating. It is because of your interest in this subject that I would especially like to value any comments that you might want to make on the article I am sending you.</p> <p>Friedman, then writing on stationery from Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, wrote back on December 19, 1957 thanking Blum for the paper. Blum must have been pleased to receive Friedman's comments, "You have done an excellent job of exposition, presentation and analysis and I have no comments, criticisms or reservations to add to it." Friedman then went on to add some additional thoughts that help readers understand his thinking on the issue of school choice at the time.</p> <p>First, Friedman suggested the idea of vouchers or certificates should start at the higher education level. He wrote, "I am inclined to believe myself that the first place to start at the moment would be on the higher education level." He then noted some examples of this before stating, "But it would certainly be highly desirable to have this kind of experiment extended and to have it performed as well at a lower educational level."</p> <p>In the letter, Friedman went on to discuss who should provide the certificate. Blum had argued for the state government issuing certificates that could be used at religious private schools. Friedman stated, "In general, one would expect the certificates to be given by whatever level of government now finances educational service." Noting that in many places, it is the local community that funds education, Friedman stated, "I would expect that in the main on the secondary and elementary levels of education, the certificates would be issued by the local community." It is interesting to note that today, voucher and education savings account programs are almost exclusively at the state level.</p> <p>Blum wrote to Friedman again on November 26, 1968. Once again, his letter hints of no personal connection between the two individuals. In fact, Blum reintroduced himself as if the two did not know each other, "Perhaps I should introduce myself. I'm a professor of political science at Marquette University, and am engaged in the effort to get tax funds for the education of children in nonpublic schools." Blum goes on to state, "While a graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1950, I first came across your writings proposing tuition grants for children who attend nonpublic schools – subsidizing the demand, as you put it." It is not clear which works Blum was referring to, since <emph>The Role of Government in Education</emph> was not published until 1955.</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-4">Blum's Views</hd> <p>As early as 1953, Blum began making the central arguments for educational freedom that he would make for the rest of his life. Blum believed that when a parent exercised their right to choose a school for their child, they should not lose out on educational benefits. That is, there should be no discrimination in education benefits. To this end, Blum argued that freedom of choice in education was a civil right and neither the U.S. Constitution, nor the separation of church and state, prevented public funding from going to private schools. Rather, they required it.</p> <p>In a letter to the editor of the World-Herald of Omaha, Nebraska dated November 23, 1953, Blum wrote:</p> <p>American school children have a constitutional right, upheld by several Supreme Court decisions, to attend parochial schools. They have a constitutional right to engage in the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, they have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a right to share equally in the benefits of social welfare legislation.</p> <p>This was the crux of Blum's argument. Parents have a right to choose the school for their children and they should not be discriminated against by being denied education funding when they exercise that right.</p> <p>Blum expounded his ideas in the most detail in his 1958 book, <emph>Freedom of Choice in Education</emph>, but he would repeat these themes in countless pieces in the years to come. His views can be summed up in three broad ideas. First, public education is not religiously neutral. Second, freedom of conscience and religion demand educational freedom. Third, educational freedom is a civil right and, as such, is legal under the federal constitution. Like Friedman, Blum makes the free-market argument of choice and competition in a chapter dedicated to the topic, but his real contribution is in situating educational freedom as a right that should not be denied on religious grounds. Blum ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]) wrote:</p> <p>... our educational policy must be philosophically based on the dignity and transcendent value of the individual, on the integrity and freedom of the human person; it must be legally based on the Federal Constitution, recognizing the individual student clothed in all his constitutional rights.</p> <p>(p. 1)</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-5">Public Education is Not Religiously Neutral</hd> <p>There is no denying that public education in the United States was rooted in the Protestant tradition at its conception (Jorgenson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]; Kaestle, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]; Kizer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]; McClellan, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]; Spring, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]). As Blum [noted] ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]), "Protestantism was really the 'established religion' of the tax-supported schools" (p. 158). From prayers to readings of the Protestant Bible, public schools had many of the trappings of a non-denominational Christian school. Indeed, public schools went as far as physically disciplining Catholic school children who refused to participate in Protestant activities. For instance, a public school teacher in Boston allegedly "flogged" a child "across the hand for thirty minutes for refusing to read the Protestant Bible" (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>], p. 159). The courts, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>]) argued, often turned a blind eye to the plight of Catholics, "When Catholic parents protested in the courts that the coercive indoctrination of their children in Protestantism was a violation of their civil rights, they received no relief" (p. 159).</p> <p>The Protestant nature of the public schools is what, in part, helped give rise to the broad network of Catholic parochial schools. Spring ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]) notes, "Catholics felt excluded from the common schools and found it necessary to establish their own system of independent parochial schools" (p. 110). Catholics, Blum suggests, did not object to "religion in the public schools," but rather forced indoctrination in only Protestant public schools (p. 159). Eventually, secularists would succeed at expunging religion from public schools. As Blum ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]) noted, "the public schools are no longer Protestant. Neither are they Catholic or Jewish. They are Secularist" (p. 159).</p> <p>Blum argued that the secular nature of public schools does not make them religiously neutral. Rather by being secular, public schools taught that moral judgments could be made on purely human terms. He noted, "Value-judgments can be made only on the basis of a point of reference. If this point of reference does not transcend man's world, then it is this-world centered – it is secularized. And, 'Man is the measure of all things'" (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>], p. 88). This secular nature taught students that God was irrelevant. That is not, in Blum's view, religiously neutral, "Every school in America has a religious orientation. A school cannot be neutral with regard to God ... If it excludes God as an important and integral part of things to be learned, its religious orientation is secularist" (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>], p. 3). Quoting the Episcopalian Dr. Bernard Iddings Bell, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]) wrote, "As the American school system is now conducted, and more and more conducted, there is no such thing as religious liberty in American education. There is liberty only to be unreligious" (p. 98) Blum added, "This is liberty only to be unreligious." Similar arguments continue to be made today (e.g. Bedrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-6">Freedom of Conscience and Religion Demand Educational Freedom</hd> <p>The United States is a country that prides itself on the commitment to freedom and individual liberty. Blum argued that there could be no freedom, no religious liberty, no freedom of conscience when individuals did not have the ability to select their child's school. Blum suggested government monopolies in education were more deleterious to freedom than government control in the marketplace (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]). In the marketplace, government control may tell you what you must eat, he suggested. Meanwhile, government control of education tells you what you must think. Blum ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]) believed, "Diversity in education is a necessary prerequisite for freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry; it makes possible the active exercise of those freedoms and those responsibilities that characterize a free society" (p. 14).</p> <p>Critics of school choice, or educational freedom as Blum typically referred to it, often say parents are free to choose a religious school for their children, they simply must pay for it themselves if they wish a religious education. Blum rejected this idea. "When government demands the surrender of freedom of choice in education as a condition for sharing in state educational benefits," he wrote (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]), "it enforces conformity to the philosophical and theological orientation of government schools. Under such conditions of coercive conformity, can that freedom and diversity of thought essential to the establishment and conduct of voluntary associations endure" (p. 5)?</p> <p>Blum viewed education funding as a government welfare benefit. It was funding spent for the improvement of individuals. Of course, there are societal benefits to an educated populace, but states have long agreed that private schools also serve the public good. Private schools produce educated students who participate in public life. Private schools meet state requirements for mandatory education. Thus, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]) embraced the <emph>fund students, not systems</emph> philosophy, "It is fundamental that the state's educational obligations are not to <emph>institutions</emph> and <emph>systems</emph>; its obligations are to <emph>children</emph>—the individual children of the state. Educational institutions and systems are but <emph>means</emph> to help the state carry out its educational obligations" (p. 29).</p> <p>Since the state's obligations are to students, the traditional model of education funding which provided funds only to public school students, denied funding to students who chose a religious school. This, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]) argued was detrimental to liberty, "There can be no free exchange of ideas, there can be no full and free discussion, when participation in the government's educational benefits is conditioned on the surrender of educational freedom – the freedom to exchange ideas and to pursue truth uninhibited by the strong arm of the state" (p. 156). If we want a system that supports freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, we must have a system that empowers students to choose the school of their choice. "For, if government can dominate and control the processes of education," he argued, "it can control thought and belief. Witness the totalitarian governments of yesterday and today" (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>], p. 1)</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-7">Educational Freedom Is Legal</hd> <p>Today, school choice advocates can almost take for granted that school choice programs are constitutional under the federal constitution. Indeed, due to recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, even some state prohibitions against public dollars being used at religious institutions have been called into question. When Blum wrote his doctoral dissertation on the legal aspects of funding religious institutions, these rulings were decades away. Blum saw a high court that was increasingly hostile to religious liberty and the free exercise of religion. Writing of the 1947 ruling in <emph>Everson v. Board of Education</emph>, which prohibited funding to religious institutions, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]) wrote, "This interpretation declared a new freedom – freedom from religion, in the sense that the state may give no aid or encouragement to religion" (pp. 2–3). Blum's legal arguments, as articulated in his doctoral dissertation and later writings, were at the vanguard for school choice litigation. Indeed, his writings offer many of the foundational arguments that would later be used to win the day for vouchers and funding for religious institutions.</p> <p>In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the first, groundbreaking ruling for private school vouchers. It was the first time a case involving a voucher program for private schools had made it to the court, directly calling into question the legality of public funds being used to provide educational options to students. The case involved Ohio's Pilot project Scholarship Program. The court was to decide whether such a program violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. In a 5–4 ruling, the court upheld the constitutionality of the program.</p> <p>Though he was not cited in the ruling, Blum's writings in the 1950s and 1960s made many of the legal arguments used by the majority. For example, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]) noted, "If either the legislative purpose or the <emph>primary</emph> effect of the legislation is to advance religion, the law is unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the purpose and the <emph>primary</emph> effect of the legislation is the education of children in <emph>secular</emph> subjects, the law is constitutional" (p. 139). In Zelman ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]), the court stated, "There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system" (p. 649). The primary beneficiaries were the students, not the private schools.</p> <p>Blum saw a fundamental tension between the court's interpretation of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Freedom of religion was a civil right, an individual and personal right. While the government could not establish a state church, it cannot deny individuals of government benefits for exercising their individual rights. "Freedom penalized is not freedom, but repression of freedom," he argued (Blum, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>], p. 157).</p> <p>Again, Blum's arguments used similar logic that would be relied upon in future Supreme Court cases. In 2017, for example, the Supreme Court took up a case that called into question the use of <emph>Blaine Amendments</emph> in state constitutions, Trinity Lutheran Church <emph>of Columbia, Inc. v.</emph><emph>Comer</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]). These provisions prohibited state funds from being used at religious institutions. Writing on these provisions in his dissertation, Blum ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]) said:</p> <p>Though the several state constitutions guarantee the free exercise of religion, practically all of them ... contain prohibitions against the giving of aid to any sectarian institution. These provisions were adopted in the wake of such predominantly anti-Catholic movements as Nativism, Know-Nothingism, and the American Protective Association crusade.</p> <p>(p. 3)</p> <p>Blum argued that denying government benefits simply because of religious affiliation was a violation of the federal constitution. He argued that freedom of religion does not simply mean the government cannot prevent individuals from participating in religious activities, but it also cannot penalize individuals for participating in religious activities. He wrote, "penalties or disqualifications or incapacitations or discriminations are as effective instruments in the curtailment of liberties as are censorship or prohibitions" (p. 8).</p> <p>The <emph>Trinity Lutheran</emph> case was not a school choice case, rather, it involved scrap tires. Trinity Lutheran, which operated a private school, applied for a state program that used scrap tires to improve playground surfaces through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The application ranked fifth of the 44 applications for the program but was denied based on a provision in Missouri's constitution which prohibited public dollars from going to religious institutions. The majority (7–2) opinion of the court stated, "The Department's policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character" (pp. 9–10).</p> <p>With the Supreme Court's ruling in <emph>Zelman</emph> and in various other cases thereafter, private school choice programs have expanded rapidly throughout the United States. Blum knew the importance of legally justifying these programs. Without constitutional approval, political action did not matter much. Advocates for educational freedom had to press for their constitutional rights, for the freedom to educate their kids in alignment with their conscience and religious beliefs without facing punishment or losing educational benefits.</p> <p>Though it was a long way in coming, his arguments, it seems, have won out in the end. Blum always knew it would be a fight, but it was a fight worth having. "Can you imagine the Supreme Court of the United States handing down the segregation decision if the colored had been satisfied with the status quo of the Plessy decision of 'Separate but equal' educational facilities?" he asked in a letter dated May 21, 1956 in which he challenged "weakness" of Monsignor McManus' failure to fight for educational freedom. "It seems to me," he argued, "that we must not only assert our constitutional rights, but also educate the public consciousness as to our claims under the Constitution."</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-8">Inspiring a Movement</hd> <p>In 2004, a celebration for America's pioneering school choice group, Citizens for Educational Freedom (CEF), was held in Washington D.C. The event, which marked the 45th anniversary of CEF, was hosted or sponsored by a who's who list of school choice advocacy groups: The Heritage Foundation, the Institute for Justice, the Educational Freedom Foundation, The Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation (now EdChoice), the Alliance for School Choice, the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the National Catholic Education Association (Clowes, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]). Founded in 1959, Citizens for Educational Freedom was the nation's first grassroots school choice organization (Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]). The organization grew to more than 20,000 members within three years (Corley, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>In many ways, the 45th anniversary was as much a celebration of Martin and Mae Duggan as it was CEF. As Clowes ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]) recounts, "In a congratulatory letter, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman praised the Duggans for sticking to principle and never deviating from their support of parental freedom to choose how children are schooled. He recalled his pleasure in finding them as 'allies in a common cause' in 1959."</p> <p>That Mae and Martin Duggan were instrumental in the founding of CEF is without question. The organization was founded after Mae Duggan wrote a letter to the editor of the <emph>St. Louis Review</emph> on April 17, 1959 (Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]). As she said in a 2004 interview, "My letter generated a lot of responses from a wide range of people, such as Vincent Corley, an insurance executive in St. Louis, and Judge Anthony Daly, a constitutional lawyer from Alton, Illinois. A group of eight of us met in our living room in May 1959 to decide what to do." The only mention of Blum in the interview came when the Duggans were asked, "What made you focus on "parents" rights'?" Martin responded, "One reason was because of the influence of Father Virgil Blum. His name is very important in the parents' rights movement...He was our mentor in those early days."</p> <p>In fact, Blum was more than a mentor. He may have been the motivating force pushing for the formation of such a group. As early as 1956, Blum was advocating for the formation of a group that would push for educational freedom and individual rights in education. In the October issue of the <emph>Homiletic and Pastoral Review</emph>, Blum wrote an article asking "Should the POAU be unopposed?" POAU or Protestants and Other Americans United would later become Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It was a leading group opposed to funding of religious education. After the article appeared, Blum received a letter critical of his arguments from Mother Patricia Barrett of Maryville College. In response, Blum wrote back on December 2, 1956. In his letter he reiterated the importance of having an "effectively organized private group" that would fight for educational freedom. Blum said legislation providing busing for students in parochial schools had failed first because the legislation was poorly written, because there was no organized group, and second, because there was no organized political support. Imitating the dictum Friedman would later popularize, Blum was suggesting parents must organize to make it politically profitable for politicians to do the right thing in supporting educational freedom.</p> <p>Blum's inspiration for CEF, however, did not just come in the form of his scholarly works and public advocacy for the formation of such a group. He was directly engaged with most of the group's founders prior to Mae Duggan's letter appearing in the <emph>St. Louis Review</emph>. Blum was in correspondence with Anthony Daly at least as early as 1958. His most significant correspondence appears to be with fellow founder, Vincent Corley. On January 24, 1959, Blum encouraged Corley to form a parents' group, "We must become very, very active in forming a favorable public opinion. We must organize groups in defense of the rights of our children." He went on to say, "I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Corley, to say that I feel that individuals such as you and others who have similar ideas should organize a layman's group in defense of civil liberties." Corley responded later that month expressing his interest in the idea.</p> <p>Blum followed up with Corley on April 2, 1959 to inquire if he had "taken any positive steps in that direction." Corley had indicated he was reaching out to PTA groups and "affiliates of the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Men." Blum was skeptical if this would prove fruitful, "the issues which must be discussed and the positions which must be defended are controversial in character and, consequently, would quite generally be avoided by any group that is affiliated with the Church." Blum would argue then as he would continue to do, that the group should be comprised of lay men and women. He also suggested the group begin opposing passage of the Murray-Metcalf bill, a proposal for federal aid for public education, which the group did indeed start opposing directly after forming (Shuls, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>On Friday, April 24, Corley wrote to Blum to tell him he had finally been able to organize a meeting the previous Monday night. This was the meeting of eight mentioned in the 2004 interview with the Duggans. In addition to the Duggans, Corley, and Daly, there were "two Catholic lawyers and three intelligent Catholic laymen." The meeting was much less enthusiastic than might have been expected. Within the group, there was great disagreement, even opposition to the idea of publicly funding private school students. "We discussed various ideas at length and sometimes heatedly," Corley stated. He "was very discouraged after the meeting and two of the non-legal men present lost enthusiasm." Still, Corley and the Duggans made plans to move forward.</p> <p>Blum wrote back on May 7, encouraging Corley:</p> <p>Your meeting of April 20th was in a very realistic sense your baptism of fire in the unending contest to secure the liberties of the individual. You will find, I am sure, that there are many people opposed to freedom of choice in education. And among these, you will find some Catholics who, for one reason or another, cannot exercise the virtues which characterize the person who has strength to assert his individuality in the face of the growing conformism of our day.</p> <p>Blum went on to say, "I hope, Mr. Corley, that your first experience in this important work will not in the least dampen your enthusiasm in organizing a group in defense of the rights of parents and children in the all-important matter of education. Your first experience," he suggested, "should convince you how important it is that gigantic efforts be made to reestablish the individual in American society."</p> <p>In the letter, Blum also revealed he had been in correspondence with the Duggans. "I have had occasion to discuss with them at some length the question of governmental aid to parents to enable them to educate their children at the school of their choice." Blum also inquired as to whether Anthon Daly was in attendance at the meeting as Blum had given him Corley's name "with the hope that he would join your group."</p> <p>Impatient for news, Blum followed up with Corley again on May 30. He had received word from Martin Duggan that he was forming a "group called the Fair Share Club." Blum wrote, "I, of course, am anxious to know whether or not he is describing the group of which you are the prime mover." On June 4, Blum finally received word from Corley, "Our small group has met three times and at the last meeting formally adopted the name American Freedoms Council, St. Louis Chapter." Initially, it seemed, the St. Louis group would become a chapter of a Catholic organization already in existence. Duggan declined being chairman and Corley was selected for the job, demurring he insisted a new chairman be selected as soon as possible. The decision to join the American Freedoms Council, however, was short-lived.</p> <p>The St. Louis group, with the encouragement of Blum, insisted that non-Catholics be admitted as full members of the organization. Blum had envisioned an inclusive organization, focused on expanding educational freedom for all individuals. This sort of movement needed broad support, not just that of Catholics. On June 22, Corley informed Blum the "group voted not to affiliate with the AFC principally because of the Council's rigid policy toward admittance of non-Catholics." The group would eventually land on the name Citizens for Educational Freedom.</p> <p>The meeting of the Duggans, Corley, and Daly, the founders of CEF, was not a random chance occurrence following the writing of a letter to the editor. Blum had influenced the thinking of each member of the original group and he had informed members about each other. He inspired. He motivated. And, at times, he prodded. In the summer of 1959, Blum met with the newly formed group. Following that meeting, he wrote to Corley on July 19, 1959 with an outline of educational objectives, operational objectives, and ultimate objectives – freedom of choice in education – for the group. It was an outline the group would follow in the years to come. On August 8, 1959 Corley wrote to Blum on Citizens for Educational Freedom letterhead for the first time. The two continued to correspond, with Blum offering guidance, for years to come.</p> <p>Establishing paternity or an organization or movement, as in the father of the school choice movement, can be difficult business, especially when people have different views of the events that occurred. By 1965, the history of CEF had already begun to be cemented with Martin and Mae Duggan as the patriarch and matriarch. However, Stuart Hubbell, CEF's national president apparently wanted to clear up this misconception. On September 20, 1965, Blum wrote to Corley, "At Stuart Hubbell's request, I went through my files of 1959 in an effort to establish who was in fact the father of Citizens for Educational Freedom." "I was able to establish without shred of doubt," Blum wrote, "that none other than Vincent Corley is the organizational father of CEF." Although, Blum could not find the letter Corley had written to him on January 29, 1959.</p> <p>Ever humble, Vincent Corley, the father of 10 children, did not accept credit for founding CEF. Writing to Blum on September 22, 1965 he told Blum that he was the father of Citizens for Educational Freedom, "I don't know what Stu has in mind in researching the parenthood of CEF but I think most people know the real Father of CEF; and he has no children, which surely does not fit my description."</p> <p>The letter hinted at division in the group. "Stu told me some weeks back," Corley stated, "that he was irate with Tim Fahey for referring to Martin and Mae as the 'father and mother' of CEF at the convention banquet, cutting me out." Though he was "not looking for plaudits," Corley agreed with "Stu that ... it was not particularly smart of Tim to give the Duggans any more glory than they heap upon themselves." Responding on October 13, Blum wrote, "I note that you observe that you are not looking for plaudits in our finding you the true father of CEF. Of course, Vince, you are not looking for plaudits, but it is hardly appropriate for continuing to pour the plaudits of 'father and mother' on Martin and Mae when actually you are the founder of our organization."</p> <p>There is an important lesson here for those concerned with the accuracy of history. As <emph>Hamilton</emph> the musical asks, "Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?" Vincent Corley passed away in 1970 at the age of 52. Blum lived to the age of 77, dying in 1990. Martin Duggan was 93 when he passed away in 2015, Mae followed him just four months later. In their lifetimes, Corley and Blum never saw the fruits of their labors. Most, if not all, of the organizations that celebrated the 45th anniversary of CEF with Martin and Mae Duggan did not exist when Corley passed. In 1992, Blum's former student and longtime friend, Quentin Quade, founded the Blum Center for Educational Freedom at Marquette University. He would pass away in 1999 and shortly thereafter, without a champion, the Blum Center closed. The Duggans lived to tell the story of CEF. In 2009, writing in <emph>The Catholic Historical Review</emph>, Chaput ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]) identified Mae Duggan as the founder of CEF, "a Catholic laywoman who continues to fight for public aid to private education to this day" (p. 58).</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-9">Conclusion</hd> <p>Like all histories, the story of school choice is rich with nuance and detail that is often overlooked. As is the case in other areas, it is easy to boil everything down to a simple answer when the truth is much more complicated. Martin and Mae Duggan are credited as the founders of Citizens for Educational Freedom. Indeed, they were there at the start and worked for decades in the organization advocating for the rights of schoolchildren to attend the school of their choice. They deserve credit for their work, but they were not the only ones. As the correspondence of Vincent Corely and Father Virgil Blum makes clear, Corley was a prime mover in the early days of the organization. Meanwhile, Father Blum was the inspiration to the founders and he connected most of the early members to one another. Blum has as much claim to the title of Father of Citizens for Educational freedom as anyone.</p> <p>When it comes to the broader school choice movement, Milton Friedman undoubtedly deserves credit for his role in advancing the cause of school choice. Friedman articulated the idea of school vouchers in a way that gave parents and advocates, such as the Duggans, Corley, and Blum, a tool for providing funding in a manner that would ultimately be found constitutional. Moreover, Friedman made secular arguments that may have had broader appeal than the religious arguments of Blum. But we cannot fail to notice, Friedman lived to tell his story until 2006. The Friedman Foundation, formed in 1996, has continued to tell of his contributions to the school choice movement.</p> <p>Father Virgil Blum labored for more than 40 years, fighting for educational freedom. He passed away in 1990, the same year Milwaukee passed the nation's first modern voucher program. His obituary, which appeared in Choice ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>]), the Citizens for Educational Freedom Newsletter, says it best:</p> <p>It seems like poetic justice that the city of Milwaukee is the first in the nation to allow students to attend private schools funded by a state approved voucher system. It is the home city of Rev. Virgil Blum, the national champion of parents choice in education. It was he who wrote the book: FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN EDUCATION, in 1958. It was he who urged a group of St. Louis parents to establish CITIZENS FOR EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM in 1959 when the first massive federal aid to education bill was proposed by the National Education Assn. Now after nearly 40 years of dedicated crusading for this essential human right, he could have looked out of his window at Marquette University and seen the fruits of his labors ...</p> <p>It was he who inspired the crusade for equal rights for children in religious schools. His legacy will endure along with other great American patriots in the annals of our history as a new day of freedom dawns for our people in the education of our children. Parents choice with a fair share of the education tax dollars to pay for that choice is soon to become a reality all over the nation.</p> <p>(p. 1)</p> <p>Father Virgil Blum may not receive acclaim as the Father of the School Choice movement. Like Corley, he certainly would not have sought those plaudits. Blum did not fight for educational freedom for acclaim. He fought for educational freedom because he believed it was a civil right that all Americans should enjoy. Thanks to his work, the movement is advancing toward that goal.</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-10">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>I am indebted to William Fliss, archivist in the Raynor Memorial Libraries at Marquette University and Vigil Blum expert, for his support in this project. The Citizens for Educational Freedom original materials were made available by the generous staff at the St. Louis Mercantile Library at the University of Missouri St. Louis.</p> <hd id="AN0179637760-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <p>Correction Statement</p> <p>This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.</p> <ref id="AN0179637760-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bedrick, J., Greene, J. P., &amp; Lee, M. H. (2020). Religious liberty and education: A case study of yeshivas vs. Rowman &amp; Littlefield Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Blum, V. C. (1954). Legal Aspects of Equality and Religious Liberty. PhD. Dissertation, Saint Louis University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blum, V. C. (1957). Educational benefits without enforced conformity. Homiletic and Pastoral Review, LVIII (1), 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blum, V. C. (1958). Freedom of Choice in Education. Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blum, V. C. (1960). No bus rides for nonconformists. Ave Maria Press, (reprinted). 1 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blum, V. C. (1966). Our federal constitution and equal justice in education. In D. D. McGarry &amp; L. Ward (Eds.), Educational Freedom: And the case for government aid to students in independent school (pp. 138 – 162). The Bruce publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref45" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chaput, E. J. (2009). "Diversity and independence in the educational marketplace": The Rhode Island CEF and the 1968 tuition-grant debate. The Catholic Historical Review, 95 (1), 57 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1353/cat.0.0337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Childs, J. L. (1959). Education and the American Scene. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 88 (1), 91 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref46" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Choice, P. (1990). Citizens for Educational Freedom Newsletter. Spring.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clowes, G. A. (2004). 'Never give up!' –An exclusive interview with Mae and Martin Duggan. The Heartland Institute. Viewed at : https://heartland.org/opinion/never-give-up-an-exclusive-interview-with-mae-and-martin-duggan/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corley, V. P. (1962). CEF: What makes it tick. Today's Family, 2 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fliss, W. M. (2022). Born in Defiance: The Public Career of Virgil C. Blum, S.J. [ Doctoral dissertation ]. Marquette University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 123 – 144). Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jorgenson, L. P. (1963). Historical origins of non-sectarian public schools: The birth of a tradition. Phi Delta Kappan, 44 (9), 407 – 414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaestle, C. F. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society, 1780–1860 (Vol. 154). Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kizer, G. A. (1965). An analysis of the drive for public funds for parochial schools: 1945–1963. The University of Oklahoma.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landis, B. C. (1975). Postsecondary Education Vouchers: A Status Study. (Doctoral dissertation) Indiana University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> La Noue, G. R. (1971). The politics of education. Teachers College Record, 73 (2), 304 – 319. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146817107300207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> La Noue, G. R., &amp; Pilo, M. R. (1970). Teacher unions and educational ccountability. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 30 (2), 146 – 158. https://doi.org/10.2307/1173371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClellan, B. E. (1999). Moral education in America: Schools and the shaping of character from colonial times to the present. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill, J. M. (1949). Religion and education under the Constitution. Harper &amp; Brothers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shuls, J. (2022). Papists and pluralists: The founding of America's first grassroots school choice organization. Journal of School Choice, 16 (3), 416 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2022.2088080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spring, J. (1994). The American school 1642–1993. McGraw Hill Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. (2017)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zelman V. Simmons-Harris 536 U.S. 639. (2002)</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By James V. Shuls</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1439437 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Father of the School Choice Movement – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22James+V%2E+Shuls%22">James V. Shuls</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+School+Choice%22"><i>Journal of School Choice</i></searchLink>. 2024 18(3):334-350. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 17 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Choice%22">School Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+History%22">Educational History</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Vouchers%22">Educational Vouchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Freedom%22">Academic Freedom</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Rights%22">Student Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Rights%22">Parent Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Church+Separation%22">State Church Separation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religion%22">Religion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Schools%22">Private Schools</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/15582159.2024.2375164 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1558-2159<br />1558-2167 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Milton Friedman is widely considered the intellectual father of the school choice movement. While Friedman deserves much credit, Father Virgil Blum stands out as an influential figure in the nascent school choice movement. Using archival research, this paper examines Blum's contributions to the movement. From his 1954 doctoral dissertation, which made the legal case for funding religious schools, to his 1958 book, Freedom of Choice in Education, and his decades-long career as a professor, Blum was a tireless advocate for educational freedom. While Friedman made the market argument, Blum made the legal, moral, and religious freedom arguments for school choice. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1439437 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1439437 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/15582159.2024.2375164 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 StartPage: 334 Subjects: – SubjectFull: School Choice Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational History Type: general – SubjectFull: College Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Finance Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Vouchers Type: general – SubjectFull: Equal Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Freedom Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Rights Type: general – SubjectFull: Parent Rights Type: general – SubjectFull: State Church Separation Type: general – SubjectFull: Religion Type: general – SubjectFull: Private Schools Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Father of the School Choice Movement Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: James V. Shuls IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1558-2159 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1558-2167 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 18 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of School Choice Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
