Senator GREEN. I did not have any question to ask of Dr. Conant, but I did have of you, sir, if I might.

You seemed to assume that under this S. 81 bill that I sponsored, that the States might reduce the amount that they are already paying. That is contrary to the provisions of the bill itself. It provides that it shall not be reduced less than the previous year in any case. So, it is to supplement the present provisions that each State makes.

Senator SMITH. I did not mean to give the impression that I apparently gave. Possibly I did. I am glad that Senator Green made that explanation. But in your bill, Senator Green, I take it that your increase would be a flat increase per teacher right straight through the Nation, irrespective of what the teacher might be getting in the State at the time.

Senator GREEN. That is correct, and that is to simplify the returns. Senator SMITH. I can see that.

Senator GREEN. It will be a great saving in expense. The Government departments tell how much more work would have to be done, how much more appropriation would have to be made for that work unless it were simplified.

Senator SMITH. I appreciate very much your clarifying the misapprehension that I may have given.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, may I come in at this point for just a minute before we leave the subject of effective education? (At this point, Senator Aiken resumed the chair.) Senator AIKEN. Yes, Senator Thomas.

Senator THOMAS. The subject of national defense is one of the problems we have handled throughout the years, and I think we ought to at least say this: Out of every 10 pupils, or out of every 10 persons rather, called under the selective service, 5 were rejected in the whole United States for some reason or other. But in those States where educational standards have been pretty high, we find the acceptance running along the same as has been pointed out for those who go into science. So, in those States where educational standards are highest, as many as 7 out of 10 were accepted, while in those States. where educational standards were the lowest, as many as 7 were rejected, and only 3 were able to be accepted.

Now, there are all factors, but the point is that where the educational standard is high, it helps the changing of health factors, the correction of eyes and all of the rest of the things which go into making a well rounded healthy youth.

Senator AIKEN. Senator Hill?

Senator HILL. Doctor, at our hearings at the last session of Congress, we had a most interesting survey presented to us that had been made by a committee of the United States Chamber of Commerce, showing the relationship between the well being of the individual and his educational attainments.

There were most striking charts and figures to show that where a person had had the opportunity for a good education and had taken advantage of that opportunity, he was so much better off from an economic standpoint. Of course that leads us right into the whole question of the strength of our domestic economy.

I wonder if you care to elaborate a little bit on that?
Have you seen that survey?

Dr. CONANT. I have seen it but I have not had the opportunity to study it. It is a point I should certainly have included in my testimony. I implied it only by saying that we must stay strong as a democracy and the way to do it was to have a sufficiently developed system of public education.

But, I think one can see the relation between the amount of money spent on education in States and some of these aspects of their material well being almost by a superficial look at the whole picture here in the United States. It seems clear that the expenditure of money on education increases the many ways in which the citizens can lead a satisfactory life, and that means many ways of spending money. "Consumer demand" is the phrase generally used, which in turn raises the level of industry and the total national income.

One can see that very convincingly, of course, by contrasting this country with a country which we generally speak of as a backward country with very little education, very little industry or very little national income. The relationship is very clear.

Senator HILL. It is illustrated by the waterfall. To an uneducated person, it was just a beautiful sight, the water coming over the rocks. To the educated person, it was not only that but it was a source of power to be harnessed for the welfare of all the people.

Doctor, I noted with much interest what you said about this matter of Federal control. You have no qualms about that; do you?

Dr. CONANT. Not as regards this bill that I studied or any of the others.

Senator HILL. Does not our whole history of Federal aid show that we can have Federal aid? We have had Federal aid without any Federal interference or without any Federal control?

Dr. CONANT. I think it is possible if the bill is properly drawn. I think this bill is so drawn.

Senator HILL. We have a noteworthy example with reference to land-grant colleges; do we not?

Dr. CONANT. I understand so.

Senator AIKEN. The only control would be to ascertain that the States had spent the required amount of money in each district. I assume that you favor expenditure of a minimum amount in each district. Over here you say that

Furthermore, the Federal money must be applied to schools for minority groups in proportion to the numbers in the minority groups in the total population of the State, else the Federal aid ceases to flow.

Would that not be controlled by the requirement in at least two of these bills that the amount in the floor be spent in each school district? You certainly would not want it taken as an average for the State.

Dr. CONANT. Well, I am not sure. If I am right in bill No. 472 that is not required, is it? May I ask the sponsors?

Senator AIKEN. S. 199

Dr. CONANT. You are quite right. In section D, page 8, there must be an audit. In other words, it comes as an audit, doesn't it? An audit? That is, control only comes in in an audit sense, does it not? Senator AIKEN. We have to guard against the States spending the minimum as a State average and make sure that it spends the minimum floor in each school district, if the minority groups are to

be assured of their full share of the Federal funds, and their full minimum of education.

Dr. CONANT. It would seem to me from the evidence I have heard that the cases where Federal money has been spent and the issue of Federal control raised were where the enforcement ran directly from Federal agents to small local communities. It seems to me that is unfortunate.

As I understand S. 472 and the other bills, the control is of an audit nature and flows directly to the States, so that the implementation of it is rather through State officials. Am I right?

Senator HILL. Yes. And as experience shows, where you have it running through the State officials, you do not have any Federal interference or Federal control.

Dr. CONANT. Exactly.

Senator HILL. Where you have had complaints, perhaps the basis of complaints of Federal interference or some Federal control has been where you have provided Federal funds that have not gone through your State authorities or through your existing State systems, so to speak. Maybe in some crisis, such as we had during the depression, WPA's funds were not administered through your State authorities. There you had the situation where perhaps you did have some Federal interference, but the moneys going to these schools were incident . really to the main purpose which was to provide jobs and to pay somebody a salary so that a person might continue a job.

But, wherever you have the money going as these bills would provide, you have not had any Federal interference. Is that not true? Dr. CONANT. That is what it would seem to me. It seems to me

this issue of Federal control is one of those things where if proper administrative mechanism can be set up by law there will be no Federal control to any extent, or in any way jeapordize our local system of decentralized public schools.

Senator AIKEN. Without saying so officially, it appears to one member of this committee at least that no legislation will be enacted by this Congress which does involve Federal control of State education systems. Maybe I shouldn't say that at this time but it is so perfectly obvious that I think it is a perfectly safe statement to make. The other matter which comes to mind is prompted by the question which you ask as to why should the citizens of a relatively wealthy State be taxed to help the education in poorer States. Now, it seems to be inferred or implied by many advocates of Federal aid to education that we should use the "means test" on States which are to receive Federal aid for education. In other words, wealthy States would get very little assistance and poorer States would get more assistance.

I am wondering what you think about the application of the "means test". In other words, must the States take the poor debtor's oath as we call it in New England, before they get the aid?

One of the reasons that prompted my introduction of S. 199 is that it seemed to me education has now become a national responsibility with 60 percent of the people living in States other than the ones in which they were born and presumably received their early education. It seems to me that as a matter of responsibility, we should furnish Federal funds so much per pupil for each child in average daily attendance at the public schools. I wonder if you had

made any study to see whether under such policy the wealthy States really would be penalized any less or any more, or how far that would be from the amount which the States would finally receive through application of the formula.

It is obvious that this money is to be paid out of excise and income taxes which are paid by the wealthy States and I have had some tables prepared which indicate to me that there is not so much difference after all in the cost to the wealthy States as to whether this is a percapita proposition by the Federal Government to the pupils in all States, or whether the money is provided through the means of a formula which requires separate figures for each State.

Have you made any study of that?

Dr. CONANT. I cannot claim to have made any study, but I have heard this argument very often made by people who are unconvinced, shall I say, of Federal aid, either on the formula you suggest of a straight per capita or on one of these with a sliding scale depending on the resources of the State. Because, I take it that even if you distribute so much for every State you are really doing more for the poor States, if you take the money from the rich. There is this element in it, whichever formula you use.

I think you have to meet this argument at least I have found you do in talking to people-am I right about that? Senator AIKEN. I think so.

Dr. CONANT. However, you construct the tables.

Senator AIKEN. I have figures for different States as to the amount they pay in taxes, the amount they would receive back under different bills, the amount they would get under a formula or the amount they would get under direct appropriation of so much per pupil, and I have not had time to analyze those figures thoroughly, but I have looked them over enough to indicate to me that perhaps there is not so much difference between the two plans, and that the direct appropriation would be the simpler.

Senator Green's State of Rhode Island and your State of Massachusetts are comparatively wealthy States, but under each plan

Senator GREEN (interposing). For example, paying the same amount to the teacher in the poorest State as paid to the teacher in the highest-paid State, there is a great difference in the percentage of increase. One teacher in the poorer State might get twice as much as she did before, but the percentage of increase would be smaller in the higher-paid States where the cost of living is very much greater. Senator AIKEN. Well, the wealthy State pays the bill under any plan.

Senator HILL. On this high-cost-of-living business, I do not think there is so terribly much difference in the cost of living in the different States. I do think that some people in some States are able to maintain a much better standard of living.

Senator GREEN. Well, my point is that if you compare the two, you ought to take the percentage of increase that the teacher gets in one place and in another that offsets the apparent discrepancy that otherwise appears.

Dr. CONANT. Well, I take it, Senator Aiken, under either formula one cannot dodge the question that the wealthy States are spending more in proportion for this aid than those in the poorer States.

That is as it works out with the income tax. I have not gone through the figures, but that seems almost obvious, so you have to meet that question.

Senator AIKEN. That is obvious. The money has to be collected where the money is, and I think under either procedure whether we appropriate more to the poorer States, under a formula, or the "means test" or whether we make a direct appropriation for each pupil in average daily attendance in all States, that the final cost of the wealthy States would be just about the same. Now, I am not sure of that. I do not want to say that as a fact, but as I looked over those figures, it appears to me there is not so much difference between the simpler direct plan and the more complicated plan of figuring out by means of a formula as one might think at first glance.

And, there is one thing that I, for one, would like to do and that is to not have the slightest taint of a relief problem connected with our schools. I think it is a duty and not a relief problem.

Senator THOMAS. Amen to that.

Senator AIKEN. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Dr. Conant, for your testimony here this morning. It is going to be very helpful to us. It is going to help us get off to a good start in these hearings, and I am sure we will create interest in the matter of Federal aid to education.

We cannot say right now just when the next hearing will be held. We hope it may be on the 21st of April, and the hearings will probably continue until all that can be said on the subject that is worth saying has been said and all groups in the country have had an opportunity to be heard.

Probably, the hearings will extend over a period of 2 weeks when we start them again. It is the hope of the chairman, and I am sure it is the hope of the other members of the subcommittee, that the full committee may bring out some proposed legislation which will be accepted and will go far toward relieving the present distressed situation in which our secondary and elementary schools find themselves in almost the whole country.

At this point, without objection, Senator Taft's statement, and a statement prepared by Senator McCarran, together with my statement, may be inserted in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN TO ACCOMPANY S. 199

PURPOSE

Section 2, Declaration of Policy, states: "In order to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare it shall be the national policy to provide for the greater equalization of educational opportunities among and within the States and Territories." This purpose is to be accomplished (1) by the establishment of a uniform national floor under current educational expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance at all public elementary and public secondary schools; (2) by contributing to the equalization of educational opportunities for children whose parents feel constrained to send them to nonpublic tax-exempt schools of secondary grade or less through providing Federal grants sufficient to pay not to exceed 60 percent of the cost of providing necessary pupil transportation, school health examinations and related school health services and nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books, for such schools. The means for the accomplishment of these two purposes are set forth in titles I and II, respectively.