The school fiscal crisis deepens every day. In the New York area, New Rochelle has announced it may have to close schools. The district has run out of money and cannot raise taxes since the legal tax limit has been reached. New York City has imposed a job freeze, and the Board of Education is making cuts to head off a projected $50 million deficit. Newark teachers are on strike following a Board of Education demand that teacher's sign a four-year pact providing no salary increases over the contract period.

It is because of the urgent need for more education dollars that initial public reaction to President Nixon's revenue-sharing proposal has been very favorable. Unfortunately, a closer look at the proposal leaves us with little reason for optimism.

A major obstacle to passage by Congress of Revenue-sharing legislation is that it strips many congressional committees of the power to approve legislation in their respective jurisdictions. A Congressional revolt on the issue of committee jurisdiction may give the President a good campaign issue against the Democrats in 1972, but it's not the best way to feed dollars to our starving schools.

But even if the proposal were adopted, new problems emerge:

Without the appropriation of new moneys (which are not mandated in the President's program), revenue sharing will merely result in the destruction of present programs such as Title I. 

Giving block grants to the states, rather than continuing the present earmarked categorical aid, reopens the thorny question of how much money goes to private and parochial schools as against public schools-a question that will have to be fought out and resolved on a state-by-state basis. 

Moreover, enforcement of the provision that federal funds shall not be used to support racially segregated schools-a provision which the federal government itself has found "difficult" to enforce -- would now be turned over completely to the very states guilty of discrimination.

Finally, in the proposal to give block grants to states there is no provision (as now exists in categorical aid) guaranteeing that the state will disburse the money to the cities in need. The states themselves will decide where the money goes, with the likelihood that the cities will be cheated in the process.

The Nixon Version of "Power to the People"

The President's use of the radical slogan, "power to the people," emerges as a conservative demand that Congress appropriate money without commitment to church-state separation, civil rights and aid to the cities. Congress should be reluctant to endorse such a program, in light of its historic obligation, when federal moneys are appropriated, to assure that these moneys are used to promote and advance national public policy, not to contradict or subvert it.

The administration's revenue-sharing plan must be placed in a yet broader context. At the recent White House Conference on Children, the administration worked day and night to undermine support for educational spending with such arguments as: "The schools are doing a poor job." ... "Federal aid hasn't helped." ... "Money is not the answer." Actually, money, as a remedy, has never been given a fair trial. Educational programs have failed because they have been starved from their very inception.

Low financing means a choice of two makeshift procedures: Either the money is concentrated on meeting the needs of a very few schools, in complete neglect of the many, or it is spread so thin that no noticeable improvement can be expected anywhere.

The administration should stop saying that more money for the schools won't help until the remedy is tried-just once. If the President wants to help the schools, he need only enforce the legislation, which is already on the books. The Elementary and Secondary School Education Act (ESEA), which contains the needed safeguards, is already on the books. Congress has authorized $24 billion over three years, but the administration will spend only $3. 7 billion in the first year. New York City this year will get federal aid to education in the amount of $146 million. If the President were to fully apply the provisions of ESEA, and New York City were to get is full federal payment, the amount would be $292 million. What is true ofNew York is true of the rest of the country. Every major city would receive double the amount now allocated to it.

The Nixon revenue sharing plan for education only consolidates and re-arranges existing funds. It does not provide any additional money for education. The Cost of Education Index indicates that school costs are increasing 13 % a year, and the President himself predicted an increase of 6% in the cost of living. Thus, existing federally funded school programs face actual cuts ranging from 6% to at least 13%.

If the President continues to press for this new and controversial revenue-sharing plan while failing to provide much needed aid to children under existing legislation, there will be no escape from the conclusion that education is being sacrificed to presidential politics.