and fellowships available for those people who are eligible for this higher form of education. We say to you, in all equity there must be found a means through which to enable the poor girl and boy to be eligible for those scholarships and fellowships which you have provided for the person who will have completed his college work. again we ask that there be a legislative recognition of the propriety of having funds made available for scholarships to enable youth to remain in school.

Senator SMITH. Miss Borchardt, I may state that the science bill to which you are referring and I appreciate very much your reference to it provides for scholarships as well as fellowships. It provides both. So it is open to the poor as well as the rich. Anybody who is qualified would be eligible to those science scholarships.

Miss BORCHARDT. That, we think, is fine and I know that last year you were one of the people who was plugging for this very thing and I am very happy about it. Our point is to get the people eligible to reach that higher level of scholarship, do you see; get the people who could not go to do the first part of college work to make some form of scholarship available for those under 20, 15 to 20, where the greatest number drop out of school.

Senator SMITH. Well, scientific youth would be eligible as soon as they get through high school, at the beginning of their college schooling. Of course, it would depend on the decision of the committee in charge, naturally, to designate those fellowships. But it was proposed that youth just entering the college stage would be eligible. Miss BORCHARDT. We hope to get them up to the college stage where that huge number drop out.

Well, then, on the question of distribution of funds, we think the general principle of relative need must govern the general allocation of funds. But we recognize that there are two kinds of needs: First, the relative need of the States themselves, and we think that the Taft-Hill-Thomas bill provides a very equitable approach to the distribution of funds on the basis of need. We are not necessarily wedded to the formula because economic conditions may have changed since that was written. But we are convinced of the value of the basic principles that formulated that formula. So we hope that the principle will be recognized in making funds available for the teachers in the public schools for salary purposes.

We also would like to point out there, and on this your technical expert would be able to give you the figures very accurately and very completely, that some money should be available to those richer States that have a State-aid program. In other words, there are certain poor communities in the rich States and if the formula in the Taft-HillThomas bill could be adjusted so as to recognize some need for a basic contribution to the States which, though rich, could, if given this fund, through a State-aid program make available funds to local communities that are desperately in need thereof, then we do feel, however, that the services for children should be allocated on a basis of the number of children in need thereof.

Now, our convention of A. F. of L. has never taken a position on total population versus average daily attendance. They have never approached that. But, to those persons in the policy-making positions in the A. F. of L. with whom I have spoken, there seems to be the recognition of the need of putting in on a basis of daily attendance

rather than on a basis of population because we may, by putting it on a basis of school population, reward those school systems that do not properly enforce school attendance laws, and so we think S. 88 is a better and more truly social way of doing it when you compute the number of children to be aided.

We think that every child in every State should have the advantage of basic services, the nonreligious school textbooks, transportation, teaching aids, and physical and welfare services. That, we feel, is in keeping, as I say, with the Supreme Court decisions.

We feel, also, that these scholarsbips should be available regardless of where the child or youth may be for every one of them.

Senator THOMAS. May I ask a question? On the aid to the private schools, would you be willing to accept an amendment that aid be given to the private schools on the basis afforded the ordinary teaching subjects, to those private schools that have been certified as properly living up to the public school standards?

Miss BORCHARDT. When you come to naming certain specific standards, we would demand that, almost. We feel that this bill is not simply to blow off money: "come on, take it," but we feel you have the responsibility in the Senate and in the House of not only preparing a bill, but of demanding that the money be expended with safeguards, that it be used in the proper way.

For example, that point that you have raised, not one cent should go to any institution or be channelled through any institution which does not meet the educational standards of the State. We think if there is not a specific title, and we hope there will be for teachers' salaries, public-school teachers' salaries, that there should be a fund expressly earmarked because we are not interested in building up an educational machine in any State, and we do know that that is happening in many States, and unless the money is earmarked for the salaries of the public-school teachers, and as I said before you came in, Senator, we like the definition of teacher that appears in the McGrathGreen bill. We think it is one of the finest, broadest definitions of a teacher to be found anywhere, in a technical sense.

If we consider that, we would want certain other safeguards. We would want the money made available to every part of the State in need thereof. In other words, we say to the State, use it, but you must make it available to every part of the State that needs it. That is a provision in a number of the welfare bills that the Congress has demanded and we urge that that be included. That would prevent political logrolling of the fund within the State.

We believe, of course, that there must be maintained the educational budget of the States and its subdivisions, that the Federal money must supplement and not supplant State money; that the teachers' salaries must be kept by the State and its subdivisions at the present level; that the Federal funds must increase and not supplant what the State has done.

We like the provision in your bill, Senator Thomas, for requiring the State to pay, to guarantee to pay, a very definite amount as a basic unit for the welfare and education of each child.

We think those are essential safeguards and I am very glad, Senator, that you referred to that.

If there are any other questions I would be very glad to answer them. I feel that your time is so occupied that I do not want to talk on;

if you gentlemen would have any further questions, I would be very glad to answer them; otherwise, I feel that we would rest our case on the basis of the need of the States for salaries for public-school teachers and on the basis of the need of every child in our America.

Senator AIKEN. We thank you, Miss Borchardt.

Miss BORCHARDT. Senator, there is one thing that I would add to that, with your permission.

The statement has been made that if we service the children in the nonpublic schools, that we are creating a union of church and state. Senator, we have furnished aids to every child in many ways. We have been furnishing services through denominational institutions. since the United States was founded and if our country has thereby formed a union with any church, I would like to know the denomination of that church. I feel it is quite evident that by servicing all children and all youth, in all institutions, we form no union with one but we help all.

Thank you.

(Miss Borchardt presented the following brief of Matthew Woll.)

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW WOLL, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN FEDERATION of Labor COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

The American Federation of Labor again appeals to the Congress of the United States for funds to enable the States to maintain their public schools and funds to afford every child and youth in the United States opportunity of obtaining those services which are essential to his welfare.

Since the first workingmen's association was established in the United States, shortly after the founding of our country, the organized trade-unionists of America have fought for the maintenance of the American free public school. Since 1827

Then

our workers have made the maintenance of our public schools a political issue. First, they wanted a free 'school. In many communities the free school was open only to those who were taxpayers or had been classified as paupers so labor set about getting the pauper label removed from the public school. they demanded that the poor as well as the rich be given more than a single acquaintance with words and ciphers. They wanted to equalize educational opportunities among all children and youth. We shall not here take the time to trace the fight-year by year, State by State, which the organized labor movement has made for America's public schools-first for their establishment, then for their growth and development, and at all times for adequate funds for their maintenance. The American Federation of Labor led the fight for compulsory school-attendance laws, for free textbooks, for a high school leaving age. It is indeed a source of great pride for us to note that the American Federation of Labor has from the day of its very founding made the support of our public schools one of its major issues. The first convention of the American Federation of Labor declared:

"We are in favor of the passage of such legislative enactments as will enforce by compulsion the education of children; if the State has the right to exact certain compliance with its demands, then it is also the right of the State to educate its people to the proper understanding of such demands."

Since that time every convention of the American Federation of Labor has declared its full support for the public school and every State federation of labor and every city-wide federation of the American Federation of Labor, with all of the affiliated local unions, has worked with firm purpose and with good effect to promote and develop America's public schools in every State-in every part of every State. As John Dewey has said, "No organization in the United States has contributed as much to the establishment and growth of the American publicschool system as has the American Federation of Labor."

We do not with to take the time of the committee, at this hearing, to relate even a part of the long record of specific gains which the American Federation of Labor has helped win for our public schools, but we should like to have such a condensed list made a part of this record. I, therefore, respectfully ask to have this statement inserted into the record of the hearings. Nor do we wish to tell

you further at this time of the great need for Federal aid to enable the States to maintain their public schools.

We believe that every Member of the Senate and House knows that America is suffering from a lack of teachers. We believe that the statistics have been so

often presented to this committee that you are all familiar with them.

We state the problem very simply:

1. We must get teachers for our schools.

2. We can't get teachers for our schools unless we pay them a living wage. 3. Some States simply cannot raise enough money to pay teachers even a living wage-let alone a just wage. Certain States simply don't have taxable resources from which to raise the necessary funds to conduct their schools and "equip" and "condition" every child and youth in the State to obtain full benefits of the education offered him.

4. States which cannot raise the necessary funds must be given some Federal funds to supplement State funds.

5. While the Federal Government cannot be permitted to control education in any State, it is morally bound to establish such standards and to promulgate such rules as will assure the use of these Federal funds to do what they are supposed to do to help equalize educational opportunities among the several States and among the people of the several States.

We shall specifically set forth these principles later.

Because we believe that the Congress is convinced of the need for Federal aid for education, we shall not dwell further on this point, but we shall address ourselves specifically to the form of the bill.

The American Federation of Labor believes that a billion dollars is the minimum sum which can even begin to meet our country's need for proper educational growth. We urge that less sentimentality be expended on our devotion to America's public-school system and American youth and that more money be spent for this purpose.

Such

There should be a broad statesmanlike approach to the whole question. is the approach of the Murray-Morse-Pepper bill. We endorse the principles of the Murray-Morse-Pepper bill and we ask that the record of the American Federation of Labor convention action to this effect be made a part of this presentation without having it read here.

However, we do want immediate emergency action.

Gentlemen, we are not pleading for any bill. We are not seeking credit for what may be done by this committee. We do want to help American youth. We therefore ask for a very simple bill, a bill which would recognize the tremendously good potentialities in all of the bills now before this committee. Gentlemen, we ask for three forms of aid immediately.

The

1. Federal aid to supplement the salaries of public school teachers. McGrath-Green bill and the McCarran bill point to the need for such action. The McGrath-Green bill gives a very good definition of a teacher not principally engaged in administration or supervision.

One who is

Yes, we need money to pay teachers' salaries. There is a shortage of teachers; there is no shortage of school superintendents. Teachers, not administrators, are underpaid.

The tasks of both administrators and teachers are important professional tasks— but teachers are not compensated as professional people.

We believe that the funds appropriated for this purpose should be allocated among the States on the basis of the formula in the Taft-Hill-Thomas bill. That formula equitably recognizes relative need for aid among the several States. Not less than $500,000,000 can adequately meet the needs of the States in granting them aid for public school teachers' salaries.

2. We believe that Federal aid is essential to afford every child those services which are necessary so that his health, welfare, and social well-being as well as his mental capacities may be best developed.

Labor believes the well-being of the Nation's children to be one of the basic principles upon which a program of educational reconstruction can be built.

To omit from such a bill a specific provision for the protection and promotion of physical and social well-being of children and youth, would be omitting the most vital part of program. A school program means to the American Federation of Labor more than buildings, curricula, and administration.

It means teachers and above all, children-all children-living in our America. The vast number of young men found to be unfit physically and mentally to serve their country under arms, was a shocking revelation.

States and their subdivisions must be encouraged to give essential services to our children and our youth. They should be morally and materially encouraged and given leadership.

But for many of the same reasons which justify the great national demand for Federal aid to all the States in need thereof, to enable these States to pay their teachers adequate salaries, we may well justify aid for every child and every youth to enable every child and every youth to have the fullest possible opportunity to develop into a sound citizen.

Every child who needs transportation to get him to school, who needs books and teaching materials, to enable him to do his school work, who needs health services, recreational services, school meals, is, we contend, morally and legally entitled to these services.

On this point it is well to go back to the report of the President's Advisory Committee, of which Dr. Floyd Reeves, one of the Nation's greatest leaders in educational thought, was the Chairman. This Committee, as you gentlemen know, was a nonpartisan, broadly representative group.

This group after a thorough study over a 2-year period, 1935-37, of the entire subject of Federal relations to education submitted an extensive report-a report which has served as a basic text for all educational groups. This group stated emphatically and unanimously that funds for teachers' salaries and funds for services for children and youth were equally important and that funds for services to children, such as the provision of reading materials, transportation, and scholarships and for health and welfare services, should be allocated separately from funds available for teachers' services. The Committee recommended that Federal funds for these services should be made generally available to children whether they be enrolled in public or in nonpublic schools.

But many communities were not furnishing these services. They couldn't, they didn't have the money. You see, gentlemen, that while education is, and must be, a State function, it is the local community and not the State which is expected to provide the greatest amount of the money for their educational services. In many communities not even all textbooks are free; the community simply does not have the funds to buy them. A great deprivation of necessary services is therefore imposed on thousands of poor children. Again I wish to refer to the report of the President's Advisory Committee, and I quote:

"Failure to provide suitable reading materials in the schools. results in a substantial denial of educational opportunity in the case of many children from homes of low income. The schools in low-income areas sometimes fail to offer even the most meager educational opportunities primarily because reading materials are not provided and a majority of the children do not have them."

This study further showed that very few States were providing adequately the essential services outlined above. Some States could and therefore should do more. Hence the Federal grant should stimulate the States to do more to do, at least something. Hence the provision in the present Taft-Hill-Thomas bill requiring each State to appropriate a minimum of $40 per child, is a very worthwhile provision.

Senator Aiken's bill so well recognizes this need for services and points a way for meeting it.

Because funds to be made available for services for children are to be used for services for the child rather than for a school system, we believe these funds should be allocated among the several States on a different basis than funds for the salaries of public school teachers.

The funds for public school teachers should, we believe, be allocated on a basis of the relative need of the several States. For this purpose we find the formula in the Taft-Hill-Thomas bill to be an equitable approach.

However, because there are thousands of children in every part of every State individually in need of these services for which we plead, for all children, we ask that funds for services for children be allocated on a basis of population of persons-5 to 20 in each State.

The principle of having the Federal Government aid individual citizens is a natural outgrowth of the Federal income-tax law. When the Federal Government under authority of the income tax constitutional amendment began taking money directly from the people, then the people expected and received direct grants from the Federal Government. There then followed the trend of granting aid for the citizens of the States. The principle of Federal aid to States and communities has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in many decisions, one of the most far-reaching of which is Frothingham v. Mellon (262 U. S. 447).