In Oklahoma, in 1935, the Brookings Institute reported:

The first step in improving the public-school system is to correct its form of organization. If the school organization were such that the entire school population might obtain the most from it, Oklahoma could have an efficient school system, even with the present expenditure. (At that time it was $23,622,555, State aid, alone, including shared taxes in the present school year amounted to $24,100,000.) But so long as it is manacled with an extravagant and inefficient form of organization, there is no hope of securing anything approaching equality of opportunity, regardless of the amount of money taxpayers may put into the school system.

In 1937, the Oklahoma State Department of Education sponsored WPA study stated:

Taxpayers should not be expected to support expensive and inefficient school units. Any plan for the improvement of the program for financial support of the schools should encourage formation of administrative units large enough to permit economical administration.

In 1946, the Joint Legislative Taxation Committee, created by the 1945 legislature, reported:

The committee is convinced the people of Oklahoma want the best possible school system, and are willing to pay for it. We also believe the people are first entitled to have their schools reorganized on the most effective and economical basis.

Again in 1946, Dean Raymond D. Thomas, of Oklahoma A. and M. College, stated:

The treatment which has the best chance to cure our public school financing ills is a major operation. It is an operation which should not bear the risk of postponement. The declared policy of the people of Oklahoma to provide adequate support for schools should be matched by the declared purpose of educators to improve the administrative efficiency of our school system.

And, again in 1946, Dean Arnold E. Joyal, of the University of Oklahoma, stated:

The administrative machinery for the operation of our local school system is inefficient, antiquated, and wasteful. The public cannot be expected to adequately support a system which is so inefficient and extravagant.

In 1947, Oklahoma still had more than 4,000 school districts. However, Oklahoma has started to clean up its own schoolyard. School laws enacted by the 1947 legislature will eliminate some 1,500 districts and have created the machinery by which to perfect complete reorganization in the immediate future. Many other States might well follow the example now being set by Oklahoma.

These indictments of our present public-school systems are serious, and I am sure conditions in Oklahoma and Arkansas are not much different than they are in a great many of our States.

In the face of these indictments, I do not believe the Federal Government should be asked to dissipate a single taxpayer dollar to perpetuate such extravagant and wasteful school systems. Nor do I believe any reasonable sum expended by the Federal Government would greatly improve educational opportunities for our children until such conditions are corrected. When they are corrected, Federal aid will not be necessary.

And the longer the hope of Federal aid is dangled before the eyes of our school people, the greater will be the delay in correcting these conditions.

I do not like to burden you with statistics, but I believe certain facts and figures will be of value to you in your consideration of this question.

First, I would like to remind you that in 1937 a survey sponsored by the State department of education in Arkansas reached the conclusion that $17,000,000 would be sufficient to finance an efficiently organized and operated school system.

Revenue available to the Arkansas schools in the school year, 1945-46, amounted to $21,468,000. And for each of the next 2 years, assuming local revenues will remain the same-actually they should increaseArkansas will have $31,254,000 to spend for public education.

From 1938-39 to 1945-46, State aid increased 135 percent; from $5,255,000 to $12,314,000. In that same period, the increase in average teacher salaries was only 55 percent. The inference is plain; too much money wasted on an inefficient system; not enough going into teacher salaries. It is up to the State, not the Federal Government, to correct this situation.

At this point, I would like to digress from the subject to make this one observation: Our cities are in a much worse financial plight than our schools.

If the Federal Government, by an act of Congress, rushes to the financial aid of schools, should not other traditionally local units of government be entitled to similar aid? That question certainly deserves consideration before letting down the bars.

At present, the finger of criticism is pointed at disgracefully low teacher salaries. Next year, perhaps, it will be police salaries and, after that, firemen's salaries.

Proponents of Federal aid to education emphasize the need for increasing teacher salaries to compensate for increased living costs. From 1939-40 to 1945-46, average teacher salaries in Oklahoma increased 61 percent. In that same period, salaries in the Oklahoma. City Fire Department increased 24 percent, and in the Oklahoma City Police Department, 21 percent.

In Little Rock, Ark., teacher salaries increased 35 percent; fire department salaries, 54 percent; police department salaries, 51 percent. I have not made this comparison for the purpose of attempting to prove American school teachers are adequately paid. But I do want to remind you that they constitute only one segment of this Nation's so-called white-collar class, which has felt the sting of increased living costs and taxes.

Frankly, I sincerely feel that most of our State and local public servants are underpaid, but that is a State and local problem, and it should be solved on that basis.

Earlier, I expressed to you my concern over Federal-State financial relationships. That is something I think we should all be concerned about. For the past 25 years, our State and local governments have been coming to Washington, asking the Federal Government to perform more and more services, until this year the cost of Federal Government is approximately four times as much as the cost of all State, county, city, and school district governments.

That situation must be reversed if we are to maintain our republican form of government which, during the past 170 years, has en

couraged people to be self-reliant, to stand on their own feet, and solve their own problems. And, which has made America great.

From the standpoint of an individual citizen, I would like to see it reversed. Last year, less than 1 percent of my income went to local government; more than 15 percent to Federal Government. I'm not complaining about my over-all tax bill. But I would like to keep more of it at home to adequately finance my own school and other services of local government which I expect, and over which I have some control.

I think there is only one instance in which Congress should seriously consider Federal aid to education, and that is in the event the Governor of any State should appear before the Congress with this plea:

"Gentlemen, we have placed the administration of our schools on the most efficient basis we have been able to devise; we have scraped the bottom of the bucket insofar as financial effort is concerned; and, we still need so much more money in order to give our children the education to which they are entitled."

In that case, and in that case only, I believe it would be the duty of the Federal Government to provide the needed funds.

Until that time, there should be no Federal aid to education; no Federal control over education.

I thank you for your kindness in permitting me to be heard on this important question with which you are concerned.

Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Schwabe.

Mr. SCHWABE. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Stahl, on this complete and timely statement. I take it that you believe such States as Oklahoma and Arkansas are plenty capable of financing their school systems without the aid of the Federal Government?

Mr. STAHL. I do.

Mr. SCHWABE. I ǹote that in Oklahoma, you think you can raise about $31,000,000 next year?

Mr. STAHL. That is in Arkansas, sir. The legislature appropriated $22,100,000 annually from the general, fund, and the local revenues amount to over $9,000,000.

That is where that figure comes from. Actually, they are increasing their assessed valuations, which should increase the amount of local revenue.

Mr. SCHWABE. And in Oklahoma, I see that since 1940, you have increased your revenues for school purposes by 61 percent?

Mr. STAHL. That, sir, was the increase in the average teachers' salaries.

Mr. SCHWABE. You would not have done nearly so fine a job had the Federal Government stepped in in 1940 and assumed the responsibility in Oklahoma?

Mr. STAHL. That is right, and I sincerely believe there would be no attempt made to reorganize our present school system if we were receiving enough money from the Federal Government to maintain the inefficient school system we have at present.

Mr. SCHWABE. Do you not fear loss of initiative by local or State units of government, should the Federal Government assume the responsibility?

Mr. STAHL. I certainly do. We have had too much of that with regard to our State and local governments in the past.

Mr. SCHWABE. In other words, there has been a trend toward centralization in other fields, and to venture forth in the field of education might not be wise either?

Mr. STAHL. I agree with you, sir.

Mr. GWINN. Mr. Stahl, it is certainly a good thing you came to town, because Mississippi has been sunk until you came. My gracious, Mississippi and Arkansas have been in a dreadful state. You should

have heard all the testimony we have had here.

Where have you been all this time?

Mr. STAHL. Well, sir, I have been in Arkansas and in Oklahoma. I was in Arkansas up until last July, when I accepted the position I have now.

Mr. GWINN. Have you ever been in Mississsippi?

Mr. STAHL. Not for any length of time. I have been through there. Mr. GWINN. But you have an idea if Mississippi consolidated her school system and cut out the duplicating business, she could do more for her school system, just what Oklahoma and Arkansas have done? Mr. STAHL. Can do. Arkansas has done very little toward correcting an obviously bad situation.

Mr. STAHL. That is right. And that is the contention of the edutional authorities that Arkansas could do a good job on $17,000,000, if she consolidated her school system and cut out the duplicating facilities?

Mr. STAHL. That is right. However, that figure was based on 1937 costs, which we all agree have increased. But this next year, they will have better than $31,000,000 available, and I believe that increase will compensate for any increase in cost of living, or cost of school supplies or anything else of that nature.

Mr. GWINN. An encouraging thing is that Arkansas is going about it, to do that very thing?

Mr. STAHL. No, sir. It is Oklahoma that is going about it.

Mr. GWINN. So far, in all the States that our emotions have been stirred about, Oklahoma has been one of those States that ought to have help, and your testimony is that they do not need help at all?

Mr. STAHL. That is right. And that is the contention of the educators from the State whom I have quoted.

Mr. GWINN. I am very much impressed with your statement. Instead of having people come to tell us what a dreadful state the children are in, how low are the salaries paid, that we ought not to be affected by that unless the governor of the State, as the official sponsoring person, comes forward and says: "We have done the best we can. We have taken politics out of our school system and paying duplicate bus drivers and conducting 10 school houses instead of consolidating them. And even so, we have to call on the Federal Government to come to our aid."

Then, and then only, you would say this Congress ought to act?
Mr. STAHL. That is my opinion, yes.

Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Owens.

Mr. OWENS. In using that hypothetical State as the criterion, where the governor comes to the Federal Government, do you mean that he shows or proves definitely that they have done everything that was possible?

Mr. STAHL. That is right.

Mr. OWENS. And in that case, would you say the Federal Government should then give them the money without any control as to expenditure of that money.

Mr. STAHL. I think so, yes.

Mr. OWENS. Let us take the opposite situation, where the State comes and admits that they just are not taking care of the children, and do not intend to. What is your thought about that?

Mr. STAHL. My thought there is that they would not take care of the children, if that is their attitude, regardless of how much Federal money they could get.

Mr. OWENS. In that case, do you not think the Federal Government does have the duty then to see that the children are educated and do take control?

Mr. STAHL. Frankly, I do not see how they could exercise that authority. I would agree with you that something should be done about it, but I don't see how the Federal Government could exercise that authority over the State.

Mr. OWENS. I guess your position is logical. That is all.
Mr. McCOWEN. Mr. Lesinski.

Mr. LESINSKI. The gentleman's statement is very reasonable. It reminds me of Michigan, way back in 1933, during the panic. The State voted that the farming communities pay only a mill and a half tax, which caused a shortage of $33,000,000. So they put on a sales tax which today is bringing $160,000,000, plus liquor control, which brings about $60,000,000, or a little over $200,000,000 annual income in place of $30,000,000, and yet a lot of our school districts are squabbling for money, just exactly what you are talking about. In my own community, one little town, we have three school districts. So I still maintain that we ought to clean house in our States and combine the school districts, save money, and I think that we can pay the teachers top wages.

Mr. ÖWENS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LESINSKI. Yes.

Mr. OWENS. Yes; we might combine a lot of our taxing agencies and save a lot of money, in other words?

Mr. LESINSKI. Naturally. I agree with that.

Mr. McCowEN. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for a very clear statement of what you said is your own personal point of view on this question.

Mr. STAHL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCOWEN. That is all.

(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

Mr. McCowEN. At this point, I want to insert in the record, without objection, the South Carolina Education Association's document. (The document is as follows:)

Hon. EDWARD O. McCOWEN,

THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C.

Columbia, S. C., April 27, 1947.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCCOWEN: Educators and many lay citizens of South Carolina are deeply concerned over the prospects of enacting into law the Federalaid-to-education bill, H. R. 2953. It is with such hopes that I am writing to you in connection with H. R. 2953.

I would be very grateful to you if you would have the following statement concerning H. R. 2953 incorporated in and made a part of the printed hearings on the said bill.