October 30, 1999, will henceforth be a fundamental date in the history of the Italian schools. What happened in Rome in Piazza San Pietro in the presence of Pope John Paul II is an event that poses a demand to the school as such, a demand that it return to being what its nature implies, that is, a place of education and liberty.
Two hundred thousand persons-parents, teachers, and students-came together in Rome at the conclusion of the National Assembly of Catholic Schools, and in the framework of Bernini's colonnade they brought to the Pope the fascination of their educational experience and the most urgent questions that arise from it.
In the square, filled to overflowing with people who are playing a game in the schools that is crucial for life itself, all the world of Italian education was present, not just a part. In the brief but intense space of a morning the vitality of the schools was evident, with its cultural richness and its human tensions, but at the same time there emerged the contradiction in the Italian educational system, which, lacking a true parity, imprisons and consequently slows the progress of both public and private schools.
The event of October 30th thus unfolded along two tracks, which never ran parallel but intersected at every step of the way. The first part of the demonstration was a witness to the rich life arising from the world of the Catholic school and here, through contributions arriving via satellite from schools in Sarajevo, Recife (Brazil), the Holy Land, and Madrid, it was finally evident that the term Catholic school does not-as a facile prejudice might lead one to believe-indicate a place that is closed off from the world, but on the contrary houses an openness to reality where whatever is proposed is offered to all.

Without half-measures
The second part of the morning saw the presence of the Pope, who embraced this richness, showing how decisive in the dramatic challenge of these times is the vitality of the schools for the future of younger generations. In his address, moved by his love for the destiny of young people, John Paul II endeavored to explain his position in depth, so that the path to follow would be clear for restoring to schools their educational function. Thus he touched not only on the problems that the Catholic school must face in order to improve the quality of its service, but also on the grave injustice still present in the Italian school system, asking openly and without half-measures (for the good of all schools) for juridical and economic parity with public schools. The response of the crowd was five minutes of uninterrupted applause interspersed with shouts of "Freedom! Freedom!"
The Pope highlighted the fundamental factors that must serve as a guide for today's schools and, although using as his point of reference Catholic schools, indicated terms of experience and judgment that are valid for any type of school, thus giving evidence of the completely non-sectarian nature of his words, more non-sectarian than those of some who claim this title for themselves.
Above all, John Paul II indicated the point of origin of the educational experience to be found in the Catholic schools, outlining it as "a great heritage of culture, pedagogical knowledge, attention to the personality of the child, the adolescent, the young adult, in a relationship of mutual support with the families, of a capacity for detecting ahead of time, with the intuition given by love, the new needs and problems that arise with the changing times."
It is because of this heritage, a true living tradition, that those who commit themselves to teaching are enabled to "find effective responses to the younger generations' demand for education."

Juridical and financial parity
After outlining in detail the originality of the presence of the Catholic schools in the context of the educational task that all schools are called to perform, John Paul II emphasized the greatest obstacle threatening this originality. In this way he brought out the most serious problem facing the Italian school system, which is parity, a problem that, if not properly solved, risks prolonging in the future an injustice that, if on one hand it targets Catholic schools, putting their very existence at risk, on the other it impoverishes the entire educational system.
In this sense, the Pope explicitly declared that "the main question to be resolved (…) is undoubtedly that of full recognition of juridical and economic parity between public and private schools, overcoming long-standing resistances that are extraneous to the fundamental values of the European cultural tradition." After clearly affirming the need for a school system whose central point is parity, John Paul II commented also on what the current government and Minister of Public Education are doing in this sense, expressing a substantially negative opinion.
The Pope said that the steps that have been taken toward parity, "while positive in some aspects, still unfortunately are not enough." He expressed the hope that the issue may finally be addressed according to "a new logic." Parity is not a problem of some benevolent concession to Catholic schools on the part of the Ministry of Public Education, but a new educational system that recognizes and supports freedom as a constituent factor of education: thus it is no longer a case of a public school system that is the dominant provider of education and a bothersome appendix called Catholic schools, but a system granting freedom to everyone, freedom to establish schools and freedom of initiative in the schools.

Educational capacity
In a society that by now calls the institution a "subject" and that sees the schools on the front line, to the point that when we speak of autonomy the term is referring to the institution and not to those who make it up, John Paul II, addressing the Catholic school, tried to give a criterion that is valid for every type of school, by which the quality of a school depends on the ideal commitment of those who teach there day after day.
Besides, the freedom underlying the educational process and that constitutes it every step of the way is not that of the institution, but that of parents, teachers, and students.

1. "Human beings live not on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Mat. 4:4) (...)
   The truth that comes from God is the principal nourishment that causes us to grow as persons, stimulates our intelligence, and strengthens our freedom. From this conviction the passion for education that has accompanied the Catholic Church through the centuries and lies at the roots of the flourishing of Catholic schools is born. (…)
   
   
2. You move in a perspective that is not only specific to Catholic education, but is attentive to the questions that today concern every type of scholastic institution. You have every right to do this, because the experience of the Catholic schools contains within it a great heritage of culture, pedagogical knowledge, attention to the personality of the child, the adolescent, the young adult, in a relationship of mutual support with the families, of a capacity for detecting ahead of time, with the intuition given by love, the new needs and problems that arise with the changing times. A heritage of this sort puts you in the best condition for identifying effective responses to the younger generations' demand for education, this offspring of a complex society, one traversed by numerous tensions and marked by continual change, which thus has a reduced ability to offer its children and young people clear and certain points of reference.
   In the united Europe now being built, where the cultural traditions of individual nations are destined to confrontation, integration, and reciprocal stimulation and borrowing, there is even greater space for the Catholic school, by its very nature open to universality and based on an educational program that emphasizes the common roots of European civilization. (…)
   
   
3. Dear friends of the Italian Catholic school, you are well aware however from personal experience how difficult and precarious the circumstances are in which most of you are forced to operate. I am thinking of the decrease in the number of vocations in the religious congregations founded on the specific charism for teaching; I am thinking of the hardship placed on many families by the extra burden that accompanies, in Italy, the choice of a non-public school; I am thinking with great sadness of prestigious and worthy educational institutes that, year after year, are forced to close.
   The main problem to be solved, in order to emerge from a situation that is becoming increasingly unbearable, is undoubtedly that of full recognition of juridical and economic parity between public and non-public schools, overcoming long-standing resistances that are extraneous to the fundamental values of the European cultural tradition. The steps recently taken in this direction, while positive in some aspects, are still unfortunately not enough.
   I join, therefore, wholeheartedly in your request to go forward with courage and to reason according to a new logic in which not only the Catholic school, but the various kinds of educational initiatives that might arise from society, may be considered a valuable resource for the formation of new generations, under the condition that they have the indispensable requisites of seriousness and educational aims. This is a step that must be taken if we wish to carry out a process of reform that will render truly more modern and more adequate the overall situation of the Italian schools.
   
   
4. While we strongly urge political and institutional leaders to respect concretely the right of families and young people to full freedom of choice in education, we must also turn our gaze just as sincerely and courageously on ourselves, to identify and carry out every opportune effort and collaboration that can improve the quality of Catholic schools and prevent an even greater restriction of our presence in Italian society.
   In this sense, the solidarity and benevolence of the entire Church community are fundamental, from the diocese to the parish, from religious institutes to lay associations and movements. The Catholic school is a full and integral part of the mission of the Church, just as it is at the service of the entire country. There must not exist, then, areas of extraneousness or reciprocal indifference, almost as though the life and activity of the Church were one thing and Catholic education and its problems were another. (…)
   It is very important, in a concrete sense, to create efficient forms of connection between the dioceses, the religious institutes, and the Catholic lay agencies operating within the sphere of the schools. In many cases it seems useful, or necessary, to share initiatives, experiences, and resources, for an orderly and far-seeing collaboration, which can avoid overlapping or futile competition between institutes and will aim instead not only at ensuring the permanence of the Catholic school in the places where it is traditionally present, but can also foster new presences in the areas of greatest poverty as well as in the nerve centers for the country's development.
   
   
5. The capacity of every scholastic institution to educate depends in large part on the quality of the persons making it up, and in particular on the competence and dedication of its teachers. The Catholic school, whose nature is principally that of an educational community, is certainly not exempt from this rule.
   For all these reasons, I address my words, with affection, gratitude, and confidence, especially to you, teachers in the Catholic schools, whether religious or laypersons, who often work under difficult conditions and perforce with limited economic recognition. I ask you always to impart a soul to your commitment, sustained by the certainty that through it you participate in a special way in the mission that Christ entrusted to his disciples.
   And with equal affection I turn to you students and your families, to say to you that the Catholic school belongs to you, it is for you, it is your home, and thus you are not wrong to choose it, love it, and support it.

Do a somersault. Looking at the world upside down is the only way to understand the schools in America. This is a country where-formally speaking-private schooling is considered to be better than public. Public education is often better in small towns than in the big cities, but all you have to do is walk a block down the street to move from excellence to disaster, since public schools are financed locally on the basis of tax revenues and the richer a school district is, the more money it spends on education. This is a country that is almost obsessed by its "spirituality," but where for 37 years now, in obedience to the First Amendment of the Constitution, prayer in public schools is not allowed. And one where, on the basis of the principle of the separation between church and state, it is forbidden to finance directly (indirectly it is permitted) parochial schools, which are in large part Catholic schools.
Here too in America a movement has been growing for years in favor of school vouchers, because families want freedom of choice, but above all they want quality education and "social justice." The phenomenon got its start in the big cities. Here the public schools are unable to handle the grave problems (immigration, non-existent families, violence) that undermine the foundations of any kind of teaching or work of education that is not mere "social assistance." And the federal statistics on standards of education confirm the state of disaster. Private schools do better, but they are expensive. Thus only the richer students can afford them, creating a de facto form of discrimination. No one is blaming the rich, or private schools, for this situation. Here the discussion hinges on how to put poor families in a condition to exercise the freedom of choice that the more fortunate already have.
Supporters of the voucher system use this basic example: a girl in Los Angeles has gone to a Catholic school through middle school, which is the schooling required by law. Now she will lose her scholarship, and the Catholic high school costs $3,500 a year, a third less than the $5,400 that the Los Angeles school system would spend on her in public school, where the walls are covered with graffiti and gangs shoot at each other. Her family has no money and thus has to resign itself to the degradation of the public schools. But if the State of California (or the federal government) gave them directly at least a part of what it costs to educate her, the family could choose the school they prefer.
At the moment only two cities in the United States have tried vouchers: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where last year a pilot project was set up, as an exception to federal directives, in which about 6,000 of its 107,000 students receive a voucher; and Cleveland, Ohio, where the number is 4,000 out of 77,000. Also, in Florida, a program has been approved in which poorer students can use vouchers. This all amounts to less than 1% of the student population, but other states are moving in the same direction, and bills in favor of vouchers are pending before Congress.
Supporting vouchers are many religious organizations and parts of the Republican Party, a party that adheres to the creed of laissez faire also on social questions. A guru of the pro-voucher movement is Milton Friedman, who in a book published in 1995, The Role of the State in Education, maintains that every family should receive vouchers to spend on schools of their choice, and the state should limit its role to ascertaining that "authorized" schools follow standard curricula, in a sense like it ensures that restaurants maintain standards of health and hygiene. Public school teachers' unions, instead, are strongly opposed, judging the vouchers to be "a radical abandonment of public schools and public education," and their use in church-run schools a violation of the Constitution. In the last analysis, they are defending themselves, just like in the rest of the world. But in America they are less powerful than in Italy.
President Clinton and his administration are also substantially opposed to vouchers. Here the problem is less banal: in the last few decades it has been the Democrats, not the Republicans, who promised and developed public education, contributing to the creation also in education of the "Great Society," that "open society" overcoming economic and racial inequality which is an unquestionable value in America. For Clinton and his people, supporting and investing in public schools is, in essence, the most natural choice.
At this point we have to do another somersault. If the Americans have a gift, it is pragmatism. In the United States, it would never occur to anybody that it is the government's task to "educate." Nor even less to "direct" education. Simply, it is clear to everyone that the government has to guarantee the right to and freedom of education. And it has to do so in the best way and at the lowest cost possible. Therefore, the debate in the United States hinges on the question of whether vouchers can work better than public schools or not. There is no dogmatism: it is also possible to change one's mind.
Thus there exists in the United States-and it is growing-a "voucher left." Among its leaders is John E. Coons, a university professor who has been studying education for thirty years. In his studies, Coons has identified economic differences and the uneven distribution of subsidies as the weak spot-even "unconstitutional"-in the schools. He tried to remedy this by proposing a more equitable system of financing public education. But he was also among the first to propose vouchers as a "leftist" solution to the problem: the government offers poor families money in order for them to send their children to school in richer neighborhoods. What could be more "democratic" than that?
Certainly, the adventure requires an act of faith. But the supporters of school vouchers recall that in the nineteenth century land grants for universities were determined even by a roll of the dice. And American universities are today the most famous in the world. At this point, the somersault ought to be done by the left in the Italian government. Which is to say, those post-Communists who, like Veltroni, like to boast of their (improbable) kinship to American Democrats and Kennedy ideals. Among these is a quality education accessible to all. Not schools run by the State.