STATE SUPPORT OF LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Senator COOPER. Secondly, I think the question is what have State governments done to supplement the efforts of local school districts. Again, I go back to your own foundation program. It seems to me that if a State has not made any additional effort to meet your foundation program, that it has not done all it can do.

I disagree somewhat with what you said, that the State is limited in its abilities, because the States have pretty large taxing powers. I know my own State, in the last 2 or 3 years, has almost doubled the amount of its aid under the foundation program. I would like to know what States have adopted a foundation program and what they have done under it.

Mr. FULLER. Senator Cooper, what the States have done is to double their support.

Senator COOPER. Can you show it State by State?
Mr. FULLER. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Show the ones who have accepted a foundation program. That is not in any way a statutory requirement, but it is an effort made by school people to secure State support.

THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION

The third thing I ask is this: Many questions have been raised in the last few months, and I think properly, as to the quality of education. I must say I am pretty much impressed with that question. I do not suppose the Federal Government can dictate what the State and local governments can do for quality. But have you got any ideas at all as to what could be done under a Federal aid program to assure or at least to make steps toward the revision of curricula and higher standards for teachers which would give this country what most educators think it needs, a real shakeup in its quality.

The real question is whether by just putting in more money, you can expand poor quality or whether you move toward quality and education and educated men and women.

Is there anything in your bills or your ideas which lead toward the real purpose of education and schools, to educate people? Mr. FULLER. Money alone will not insure that.

Senator COOPER. Just a lot of money given to the States; no. I am in favor of it, but it is not in the assurance that boys and girls are going to be better educated.

HIGH CORRELATION BETWEEN FINANCES AND QUALITY

Mr. FULLER. On all the studies that have been made on educational quality that I know about over a period of many years, the one factor in school administration which correlates highest with quality is fiscal support, financial support of the program. That is the one factor that determines quality more than any other one factor.

Let me hasten to explain, Senator Allott, because I see you are shaking your head.

Senator ALLOTT. You said that because I was shaking my head. I do not believe that.

Mr. FULLER. I believe that. I will tell you why. When you trace that down, you say the most important thing is the teacher. I agree

that the most important is the teacher. But I also know we have 100,000 emergency certificates, and I also know we cannot attract the quality of personnel to teach without paying them salaries which are comparable to those which they can earn in other occupations. So money is basic to the quality of the teacher. The quality of the teacher is the thing that determines the quality of education.

MONEY NOT RELATED TO IMPROVED QUALITY

Senator ALLOTT. I shook my head. I agree that more money for teachers would tend to attract teachers who are more able. But this ignores the personal factor, for one thing. Also it does not attack one of the fundamental things which is the method by which knowledge is sought to be imparted to students. It does not attack this system by which children cannot even read when they get to college. It does not change the curricula. It does not change the pattern of letting children choose their own curricula, even through junior high and high school. It does not raise the qualifications for having 3 years or 4 years of English in high school. It does not require that students learn some foreign language somewhere along their way, which should begin in grade school. It does not touch any of these things.

I grant you that what you say is true. But it also does not touch this other factor which I believe is very important.

Mr. FULLER. I am afraid I would have to disagree, Senator, because on all of those things, great progress is being made. When the funds are available to make more progress, more progress will be made.

If you were to take away some of the funds now, the progress in every field you mentioned would slow down.

Senator ALLOTT. I would hate to disagree with you, and I disagree that progress is being made unless it has been in the last 3 or 4 months. Mr. FULLER. We would have to stand in disagreement.

Senator ALLOTT. We will just have to stand in disagreement, Doctor, that is all there is to it.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Holden.

EXPERIENCE IN VERMONT

Mr. HOLDEN. I might say something that is relevant here. I would like to give the picture simply within one State as to money and quality and what teachers do and so on.

In our State, in many cases, the superintendent of schools is the only person in a supervisory capacity that is not tied right down to classroom work as a teacher. In other words, he is the only supervisory person. With changes we have had, changes in enrollments, a tendency to close schools and arrange transportation, and things of that sort, the question of making the case much more clearer before the taxpayers as far as the local tax rate goes, the amount of time the superintendents have had for supervision in the classroom has dwindled down and down. At the same time, we have had more teachers, many with less training, who needed supervision more.