Also, if the Federal funds become a very considerable percentage of the total sum deing used, it is almost impossible to prevent some Federal interference, even with every safeguard provided as in the bill we have introduced. I think States which accept Federal funds and come to rely on them are in danger of losing much of their independence. A State which can get on without the Federal money had better exert every effort to do so. I do not regret, therefore, that Ohio is in a position where it can carry on without Federal assistance, and will have to do so under the formula in our bill.

The danger of Federal control of educational policy appears clearly in the controversy now going on regarding private and parochial schools. The advocates of such schools insist that the Federal money be available to such schools regardless of the policy of any State government in refusing to recognize such schools as part of the public school system. On the other hand, the opponents of such schools wish us to declare that no Federal money shall be expended for private or parochial schools, regardless of what the policy of the State may be in dispensing its own funds. If we yielded to either of these arguments, we would clearly be changing the educational policy of the State. This bill is a State-aid bill, and the State should be authorized to use the Federal funds for the same educational purposes for which it uses its own State funds. If the State recognizes private and parochial schools as part of its State educational system, then the bill provides that it may use Federal funds in the same proportion in which its State funds are used for such schools. On the other hand, if the State educational policy is to operate only through public schools, Federal money can only be used for that purpose.

If we cannot maintain the principle of noninterference in State educational systems, I would be opposed to the whole bill. The question has nothing to do with the highly controversial problem whether States should appropriate public funds for parochial schools. One may feel strongly either way on that subject, but it is a matter for each State and the people of each State to determine.

EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BECOME DEPENDENT UPON FEDERAL AID

The second principle which I believe must underlie any bill for Federal aid is that the Federal contribution shall be auxiliary and shall not become the principal support of education. I have already pointed out that regardless of safeguards, too much reliance on Federal money would inevitably come to mean Federal control. But even more than that, the Federal Government's primary obligations must take the greater part of the money which can be raised even by Federal taxation. Three national responsibilities, interest on the public debt, support of the armed forces, and payment of veterans' allowances, amount in the present budget to $23,500,000,000, three times the entire prewar budget of the Federal Government. It is not true that the Federal Government can levy all the taxes it may like to levy. The present tax burden seems to me a complete discouragement of the very economic activity from which taxes come. The people today on the average are paying nearly one-third of their income in taxation, working 1 day in 3 for the Government. I believe such a tax system will soon discourage both individual initiative and corporate expansion. The Federal contributions, therefore, to States for matters where States have the primary obligation, like welfare, health, housing, and education, must be in a limited amount.

On the other hand, the State tax systems have been set up in most cases very largely with a view to raising money for education. They should be even more adapted to that purpose, and they should be looked to primarily for the necessary increase in teachers salaries. I realize the difficulty which even the wealthier States have today to raise the necessary money, but such States can do so, and should.

My own theory is that wage rates per hour have undergone a permanent increase which means a permanent increase in costs. I doubt if the cost of living can at any time be reduced to much less than 150 percent of prewar. I believe we should try to adjust our whole economy to a 50-percent increase in the wage and price level. Since teachers were in most cases underpaid, even before the war, the increase in teachers' salaries over prewar should probably be greater than 50 percent.

I believe the States can and should give such an increase. It is true that it takes some time to adjust a State tax system to the higher level of values, to increase real-estate appraisals and the like, but certainly increased price and wage levels should be reflected in time in a permanent corresponding increase in the State tax receipts. For the present many States have a surplus. Those which

60144-47

have no surplus might provide for a gradual increase over several years. But I feel strongly that the Federal Government with its tremendous burden should not be called upon to solve the financial problems of States having more than the average per capita income, fully able to give an adequate education to their children..

S. 472 FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION BILL

S. 472 provides that, as a necessary condition of Federal aid, any State must provide for its primary and secondary educational system at least 2.2 percent of the income of its citizens. This is slightly higher than the national average. Furthermore, the allotment to any State is proportionately reduced if it does not levy at least 21⁄2 percent of the income of its citizens.

When I speak of the income of its citizens, the concept is one of a State income similar to what we have come to speak of as "national income," namely, the gross income of all the individuals in the State as determined by the Department of Commerce. I do not suppose this statistical measure is completely accurate, but it is now regarded as substantially so.

The bill then provides that if 1.1 percent of the State income, which would be one-half the total State and local revenue set aside for primary and secondary education, is insufficient to provide $40 for each child from 5 to 17 years of age in the State, then the Federal Government will make up the difference so that onehalf of the State revenue plus the Federal contribution will equal $40 for each such child.

It is then required that the State see that every school district in the State receive from Federal, State, and local revenues at least $40 per annum for each pupil in average daily attendance excluding interest, debt service, and capital outlay. If there are separate colored schools, each colored school must receive such amount. You will note that there will remain to the State to be used in its discretion, one-half of its total school revenues, equal at least to 1.1 percent of the income of its people. Undoubtedly, some districts will get a larger proportion of this surplus fund than others, but it should be entirely possible for a State to provide from such funds a higher minimum base than $40 if it chooses to do so. We considered making a requirement of perhaps $60 per child, but we found that while there would be enough money in each State from State, local, and Federal funds to provide such a uniform standard, it would take money now being spent for schools in the wealthier districts in the State to be distributed to the others. Perhaps a State equalization system should do that, but we did not like to compel the reduction of the funds now being spent in any of the wealthier urban districts.

In summary, therefore, the basis of S. 472 is that if a State after making more than the average effort cannot provide $40 per child from half its revenues, the Federal Government will assist the State to see that every child receives at least a $40 education. I realize that this is too low a permanent standard, but it is very much higher than is now being spent for many children in the poorer districts of the United States. It will take some years even to reach the $40 minimum standard, and then we can consider whether to shoot at a higher goal.

There is reason to hope that the disparity in income between the different States may gradually decrease. The very education in the poorer States which we are now promoting ought to increase the progress, prosperity, and income of those States. As they approach the national average, the necessity for aid from the Federal Government will become less. This might well enable us, without increasing the appropriation, to raise the standard.

I quite realize that this bill does not hold out any immediate promise of relief to the teachers in many States. Where the aid does go, probably 80 percent of it will go for increases in teachers' salaries where those salaries are now the lowest. There are some bills providing a general contribution by the Federal Government to all teachers' salaries and proposing very large appropriations for Federal assistance to education. I do not believe that Congress under the present budget condition could possibly adopt any such bills. In fact, even with S. 472 we may have to postpone its first effective year until the Appropriations Committee certifies that the program can be begun within the over-all limitation set by the provisions of the La Follette-Monroney bill. The concern of all should be first to see that all American children have opportunity. That is the proper concern also of the Federal Government.

The principal danger to the present bill rests in the differences between the advocates of Federal education. I feel very strongly that if all of the advocates would unite behind S. 472 it could be passed at this session of Congress. It is

based on sound principles. It recognizes the obligation of the National Government to see that each child has an adequate education and recognizes its further obligation. It recognizes and avoids the dangers of Federal control and leaves to the States the responsibility and the power to work out their own salvation. It would be a tremendous step forward in assuring to America the means of striving forward constantly toward the ultimate ideal of complete equality and complete liberty.

Senator AIKEN. The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon at 11:20 a. m., the hearing adjourned.)

FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1947

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m. in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator George D. Aiken presiding.

Present: Senators Aiken (presiding), Smith, Ives, Thomas of Utah, Ellender, and Hill.

Also present: Senator Cooper.

Senator AIKEN. The committee will come to order.

From where we left off on the 9th of April, we will continue with the hearings on Federal aid to education and the several bills providing for Federal aid to education.

We have a great many witnesses who desire to be heard. I think we have 27 slated for this week and more witnesses desire to be heard next week, and we will hear them then.

We will hold hearings every day this week and expect to conclude them sometime during the next week. There will be provision to hear all those who have something material to contribute to the committee for its consideration when it finally goes into executive session to consider bringing out a bill at this session.

The first witness this morning is Dr. John K. Norton.

Dr. Norton, will you take the stand and proceed with your testimony, first identifying yourself and telling us in whose behalf you are appearing this morning?

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. NORTON, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Dr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is John K. Norton. I am a professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and I guess I represent myself. I certainly do not claim to represent my university.

Senator AIKEN. Very well.

Dr. NORTON. The testimony that I would like to present deals with need for Federal aid for education and also with the need for legislation of the type proposed in S. 472, Eightieth Congress.

It seems to me that several considerations indicate that these needs exist. They are very great needs and I will deal with them in turn.

First, there should be Federal aid for education because denial of educational opportunity and gross neglect of educational opportunity