Mr. OWENS. But you do believe in making exceptions, where you believe you should tell a State what to do if they are going to use any of that money for private schools in any way; is that correct?

Mrs. Cook. We do not control their educational policies. But we do say that they must make certain efforts before they can receive Federal aid. And I think that is rightly so, because it is not fair to those States who do make, we might say, a supreme effort, as they do, for instance, in Mississippi.

Mr. OWENS. If the State, for instance, Louisiana, or some other State, felt that it might be to the advantage of the schools to give it to private or religious schools, do you feel that the Federal Government should govern that and make an exception to that?

Mrs. Cook. No; we feel that every penny that is used for private and nonpublic schools takes away from the public school system. We believe that that should be maintained and strengthened. That was one reason we opposed this section that was made for those States.

Mr. OWENS. That will bring me to the Russian situation of which you have figures. Suppose we take all of these parochial schools, private schools, and all the libraries that have been set up throughout the Nation, that are given to people free of charge, both by private charities, and by Federal Government and States government, let us take all of the cinemas, movies, theaters, and so forth, and put them all together, just as they do in Russia, and have you any idea of the percentage of the United States income that would be applied to education in that way, even though that is done in a free way, under a free, open system, like we have in the United States, as compared to one that is controlled by Russia.

Would you know the comparison percentagewise, then?

Mrs. Cook. I haven't any idea, and I wouldn't even think about it, because I think that is a system that we don't even want to consider in this country.

Mr. OWENS. But you are giving the figures and percentage of education, and you know that Russia includes all of those things in their educational system, do you not?

Mrs. Cook. I think one of the former witnesses testified, I can't recall which one, as to the advantage, for instance, which the Army had in its training program, because it had all these facilities, films, different equipment at hand; because of the expenditures and the small classes it had; what it was able to do in a short period of time, because it had all these facilities.

We want more money for our schools so that we can utilize facilities of that type.

Mr. OWENS. Do you think that morals is a part of education?

Mrs. Cook. Certainly; I think morals are taught in our public schools.

Mr. OWENS. Do you think the boys came back from the Army with any better morals?

Mrs. Cook. No; I don't believe they did. They were not lasting. I think morals, to be lasting, should be taught when a child is very young. Mr. OWENS. But do you not believe that some of the Army education and some of the care they gave those boys in camps around these large cities was a lack of education rather than education?

Mrs. Cook. No; I certainly don't.

Mr. OWENS. You are not acquainted with that.

Mrs. Cook. I certainly think it was educational to a certain point, but I think, to make anything like that lasting, teaching of morals should be given in the more formative years of a child's life.

Mr. OWENS. It seems to me I see a tremendous similarity between your suggestion and what the Russian Government is doing. I do not know, but there seems to be a similarity.

Mrs. Cook. The only suggestion I made was that the reason we believe in Federal aid is that some States are not able, no matter how many of their tax dollars they may put into education, to give the minimum-what we consider a minimum-standard of education. Mr. OWENS. It is very odd. Those same States seem to be the ones that seem to be taking away the privileges and rights that the American people fought for; is that not true?

Mrs. Cook. Are you referring to the poll tax and things of that kind? Mr. OWENS. Yes; all of the Southern States that deprive a part of our people of their rights of suffrage and other rights.

Mrs. Cook. Congress hasn't done anything about it.

Mr. OWENS. No; but you want us to give the money for education without controlling how it is to be spent.

Mrs. Cook. Hasn't that been before Congress, and Congress hasn't done anything about it? I mean the poll tax.

Mr. OWENS. I am saying education. You want us to give money to them without our controlling how it is to be spent. Do you not think we ought to be able to make a trade with them on it, to control and see it is spent properly to reach all people in the right way, and educate them and give one as great an opportunity as the other?

Mrs. Cook. You can't ever hope to raise the education standards in those States unless you appropriate some money to help them. Mr. McCOWEN. The time has expired.

Mr. LESINSKI. Do I understand correctly the statement, page 3, second paragraph from the bottom, when you say, "Distribute the State tax moneys to nonpublic educational institutions is clearly a violation of a principle for which the National Congress of Parents and Teachers stands"?

In other words, there should be no money given to any other schools but the public schools? Do I understand that correctly?

Mrs. COOK. Yes.

Mr. LESINSKI. Then you must be opposed to giving poor children in parochial schools lunches which are paid for by Government.

Mrs. Cook. I believe, if you remember, that we did oppose that when the school-lunch program came up.

Mr. LESINSKI. You are also opposed for the Federal Government to pay tuition to the religious schools under the GI bill for education. Mrs. Cook. I believe, sir, that that is a responsibility which the Federal Government took upon itself, and which it was not able to meet. It was an emergency, and necessarily there was no other alternative. We hope that this Federal aid to education will be a long-range program, and not something to just tide over this present emergency. Mr. LESINSKI. But from the statements we have heard here, do you think this practice will lead to union of church and state? And if so what church?

Mrs. Cook. Do you mean the practice of what?

Mr. LESINSKI. The Government aiding them.

Mrs. Cook. The Government does not now aid them. Do you mean in the GI bill of rights?

Mr. LESINSKI. No; in its general education.

Mrs. Cook. I think it is an opening wedge of giving probable further facilities to such private and parochial schools.

Mr. LESINSKI. I am sorry, I must disagree with the lady, because no church, I do not care what religious church it is, any of the churches, would have anything to do trying to unite the Government with a particular church.

Mrs. Cook. It wouldn't be a uniting of the Government with the church, but it would be asking more aid from the Government.

Mr. LESINSKI. I do not know what religious denomination would do that, because institutions like public schools are entitled to certain help, so I think the private schools belong in the same class.

They educate the same type of Americans, and they all go when the war comes on. All the boys go together; it does not make any difference what church they belong to.

Mrs. Cook. For instance, in the field of health, we provide certain public health services, but parents have the privilege of taking their children for vaccination, for instance, to a private physician, in lieu of a clinic. We wouldn't think of subsidizing the private physician because the parents chose to take the children there, rather than to the clinic.

Mr. LESINSKI. That is a matter of the parents.

Mrs. Cook. So also is this other matter one for the parents.

Mr. GWINN. I was a little surprised to hear that you think we teach morals in our public school system. What kind of morals do we teach?

Mrs. Cook. We certainly teach, or try to teach, our children right from wrong, do we not?

Mr. GWINN. What is the standard of right and wrong which we teach? What authority to this do we use.

Mrs. Cook. That depends upon the teacher. That is the reason we are so eager to get the best qualified teachers in our public school system.

Mr. GWINN. Then, the moral standard we teach today in our public school system is the moral standard of the teacher.

Mrs. Cook. Not necessarily so.

Mr. GWINN. Then what other moral standard do we teach?
Mrs. Cook. There are so many moral standards.

Mr. GWINN. That may be why the people are not supporting public schools more than they should. There are so many moral standards. Mrs. Cook. They are usually based upon the Ten Commandments. Mr. GWINN. Do you ever know of any examination of a child coming into our public school system or going out of our public school system where any examination reflected any questions having to do with moral standards, such as the Ten Commandments?

Mrs. Cook. I think that subconsciously we teach those things, because we believe in those things.

Mr. GWINN. You do not teach mathematics on a subconscious basis, do you?

Mrs. Cook. Mathematics is one subject, certainly, which teaches right from wrong, does it not.

Mr. GWINN. Do you know of any public school system which systematically teaches or examines the pupils with regard to any moral code, such as the Ten Commandments?

Mrs. Cook. No, sir; I think that is prohibited, is it not, by State law? That is because of the diversity of religion.

Mr. GWINN. That is an assumption which we offer as an excuse for not teaching moral codes. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents teaching the simple moral code, such as contained in the Ten Commandments.

Mrs. Cook. Do you think, then, that Congress should set up some moral code to be taught in the school system?

Mr. GWINN. No; I think the further away from this you get, the further away from the Ten Commandments you get.

Mr. McCowEN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Cook. Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

Mr. McCOWEN. Yesterday, Mr. Gwinn stated that the gentleman who could not appear late yesterday was here, and would like to appear, so we agreed yesterday to hear him at this time, provided there is no objection from the committee, and they care to stay beyond 12 o'clock.

We will hear from Mr. Steve Stahl.

STATEMENT OF STEVE STAHL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EXPENDITURE COUNCIL

Mr. STAHL. My name is Steve Stahl. I reside at 2109 Northwest Thirty-first Street, Oklahoma City. I am executive vice president of the Oklahoma Public Expenditure Council. However, I am appearing before you gentlemen to day in the roll of a private American citizen. I am here because I am gravely concerned over existing trends in Federal-State financial relationships, and because I believe Federal aid to education is both unnecessary and undesirable.

In order to make my position clear, I want you gentlemen to know I recognize the necessity for improving our system of public education in order to provide more adequate educational opportunities for our American youth, and better salaries for competent classroom teachers. This can be done; it should be done without financial help from the Federal Government.

In the first place, every one of our 48 States is in a better position to bear the cost of education than is the Federal Government, with a debt of some $260,000,000,000, whereas the 10 low-ranking-income States had at the end of 1946.an aggregate balance of $306,414,000.

From the standpoint of ability, the latest figures I have been able to obtain would indicate that Mississippi and Arkansas rank at the bottom in financial ability. However, from 1940 to 1946, both States ranked well above the national average in percentage increases in income payment to individuals. Mississippi was fourth with an increase of 180 percent; Arkansas twelfth with an increase of 149.9 percent.

Also, in the fiscal year 1945-46, the taxpayers of Missippi paid into the Federal Treasury $88,578,000 in income, excess-profits, and miscellaneous internal-revenue taxes. In Arkansas, Federal tax collections for the same year amounted to $97,402,000.

Any State capable of paying such amounts in Federal taxes alone is certainly capable of adequately financing an efficiently and economically operated system of public education.

I want to emphasize those two words, "efficiently" and "economically." For the past 5 years in Arkansas and in Oklahoma, I have had the opportunity to observe the administration and operation of public schools in those two States rather closely. And I am forced to the conclusion that the plight of our schools, even in the lower-income States, is not the result of financial inability to support an adequate program of education. Rather, it is due to the continuance of archaic, inefficient, and wasteful school systems.

Let me illustrate just what I mean. In 1945, the Arkansas Public Expenditure Council, of which I was then executive director, was asked by the Phillips County Chamber of Commerce to assist in developing a plan for consolidation of the Helena, West Helena, and Barton school districts.

Dr. E. Maxwell Benton, a member of our research staff, who had just completed an over-all study of public education in Arkansas, was assigned to the task. Working with Dr. Benton were the superintendents of the three schools and the county school supervisor. In the course of their study, they found six small districts situated around the greater Helena area, none of which were maintaining schools for white children. Each was providing transportation to Helena schools. In one, the per pupil per year cost of transportation was $281; in another it was $191, as compared to a State average of $12.32.

I could go on indefinitely citing examples of school-dollar wastage. Rather, I would like to submit for your consideration evidence from more authoritative sources, from educators themselves.

In Arkansas, in 1930, the Dawson-Little survey contained an especially strong argument for the consolidation of many small schools, and the establishment of larger fiscal and administrative units.

In 1937, the Department of Education sponsored WPA school survey, emphasized the need for reorganization of the Arkansas school system, and arrived at the conclusion that $17,000,000 would adequately finance a satisfactory school program. I would like to have you remember that figure.

In 1940, the Arkansas State Department of Education in a report to Gov. Carl E. Bailey stated: "Larger units are necessary to provide an acceptable school program on an economic and efficient basis. The State could plan its school program much more effectively on a basis of 75 to 300 units, each sufficiently large tó present a complete program."

In 1945, the Arkansas Public Expenditure Council, after more than a year's study, published a 148-page report which recommended the establishment of a total of 84 districts, and presented a financial plan calling for an expenditure of $21,683,000.

In 1947, Arkansas still had approximately 2,000 school districts, many of which were unable to raise as much as $100 in local school revenues, and many of which were still maintaining schools with less than 10 enrolled pupils.