Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX

Senator ROBERT A. TAFT,

THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE
YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
New York 22, N. Y., April 18, 1947.

Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SIR: The Young Women's Christian Association has had a long and consistent concern for the reducing of inequalities of educational opportunity. In their work with thousands of young women and girls they are constantly aware of the varying degree of efficiency in the educational system of the United States. Through contact with girls in elementary and secondary schools they observe the discrepancies in expenditure between different States, the lowness of salaries in many, the increasing shortage of teachers, and the unevenness in curricula.

At the triennial convention held in Atlantic City in March 1946 the following item in the YWCA public affairs program was adopted:

[ocr errors]

Recognizing that the welfare of our Nation is largely dependent upon the intellectual integrity of its citizens,

"We affirm our belief in equal educational opportunity for all people of the United States and will support legislation to bring this about.

"We will work for the improvement of educational standards in relation to teacher training, salaries, and curricula."

If the children of today who will become the citizens of the postwar world are to meet the many problems of the latter, legislation must be adopted.

Recent events, notably the fact that the education of 1,704,000 men in the selective service was below the minimum required for induction into the armed services has made plain that boys and girls in many communities do not get the equipment necessary to enable them to function as enlightened and alert citizens when they reach adulthood.

[ocr errors]

One section of one of the bills, S. 472 now under consideration concerns the National Board, viz., section 6b-"Provided, That the funds paid to a State under this act shall be expended only by public agencies and under public control, except that in any State in which funds derived from State or local revenues are disbursed to non-public-educational institutions for expenditure for any of the purposes for which funds paid to such State may be disbursed to and expended by such institutions for such purposes.' The National Board of the YWCA believes that the basis of American democracy lies in our public education system. In a democracy the responsibility of the State is to provide education for its citizens in public schools open to everyone on the same basis. The Board believes it is not the responsibility of the State to support other than public schools. The YWCA would therefore like to see section 6b deleted and with this deletion would support S. 472 believing that it would be a first step toward greater educational opportunity in this country.

Very sincerely yours,

Mrs. ARTHUR FORREST ANDERSON, President.

THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Columbia 5, S. C., April 14, 1947.

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Education,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: Educators and many lay citizens of South Carolina are deeply concerned over the prospects of enacting into law the Federal-aid-toeducation bill. S. 472. It is with such hopes that I am writing to you in connection with S. 472.

I would be very grateful to you if you would have the following statement concerning S. 472 incorporated in and made a part of the printed hearings on the said bill.

South Carolina is in most urgent need of Federal aid to education. When we face realistically such facts as: There are 590 children per every 1,000 adults to be educated in South Carolina as compared with 280 for California and 388 for the United States as a whole. that South Carolina has an income of only $950 behind each child 5 to 17 years of age compared with $5,130 for Nevada and an average of $2,534 for the United States, and that the average income in South Carolina was $576 compared with the national average of $1,031 for 1943, it is very evident that it is impossible for South Carolina to furnish educational opportunities for its youth equal to those found in the wealthier States.

South Carolina exerts much greater financial effort to support its school system than the majority of States, yet its actual expenditures for education are very low in comparison with what they should be.

If we, in this great country of ours, are to make any noticeable progress in the eradication of ignorance and poverty, then we must offer more equitable educational opportunities to the youth of the Nation.

South Carolina's Governor, J. Strom Thurmond, in his inaugural address on January 21, 1947, had the following to say in reference to Federal aid for public education:

"I favor Federal aid for public education, with the understanding that such aid should be without Federal control and the State public-school system remain entirely under the control of the State. It is a disturbing fact that if we in South Carolina spend all our public revenue for the support of education, we should still not be able to give our children the advantages enjoyed by children in many other States. South Carolina has the greatest percentage of children of school age of all the States in the United States, and since the children of one State may become citizens of another State, it is appropriate that their education be financed by taxpayers everywhere. The Federal Government has been providing assistance to education since 1862, when grants were made for the establishment of agricultural colleges, and increasingly since that time large appropriations have been made for the support of some specific form of education such as agriculture, home economics, trade and industrial, and vocational rehabilitation. It is illogical to oppose Federal aid for education and at the same time advocate Federal aid for road construction and other purposes. of Federal aid to education is without foundation, for we shall have more Federal control without it than with it, because the effect of Federal court decisions requiring equalization as between the races will cost the State much more money and consequently lower the quality of the total school program unless aid is received from Federal resources."

Very sincerely yours,

The fear

J. M. CHERRY,
Director of Public Relations,
South Carolina Education Association.

DENVER, COLO., May 9, 1947.

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Education,

Senate Office Building.

May I present the following statement in the hope that it may be included in the record of proceedings for the hearings on Federal aid for education?

"The Colorado Education Association, the official spokesman for the teachers of Colorado, has repeatedly passed resolutions in support of Federal aid for public education. This support is growing in intensity not only from teachers but from a majority of the citizens who are becoming alarmed with the serious threats to their childrens future welfare.

"It is not our purpose to again fill the proceedings with data and arguments showing the need for this legislation, but we do want to make a brief statement for the record.

"We believe that (1) the passage of S. 472 would be one of the most significant steps forward ever taken by any Congress (2) the passage of S. 472 would be the soundest investment ever made by Congress and would be our best insurance in the maintenance of a high National income and general prosperity.

"Our Colorado General Assembly has recently passed legislation which will increase the amount of state support to public education from approximately 18 percent of the total cost to about 26 percent. Although this will give material help, it will fall far short of giving to all of our 200,000 Colorado school children the kind of educational opportunity to which they are entitled.'

Respectfully yours,

[blocks in formation]

STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESS OF AMERICAN WOMEN ON THE NEED FOR FEDERAL

AID FOR EDUCATION

The Congress of American Women, the American branch of the Women's International Democratic Federation, has a threefold program-world peace, women's equality, and child care and education. It believes that the care and education of children is one of the most important elements of our national life. It recognizes the fact that many American children do not get either sufficient care or education. It further recognizes that America can give all her children at least basic minimum care and a basic minimum education. Therefore, the Congress of American Women wishes to give its full support to the principle of Federal aid to education.

The need for such legislation is crying, and has been brought to the attention of Congress many times. Our country's educational deficiencies were sharply brought out in the selective-service findings of August 1945, where it was reported that 676,300 men between the ages of 18 and 37 were rejected for educational and mental deficiencies. It was estimated that at least 300,000 of these were rejected solely for educational deficiencies.

Many factors contribute toward our low level of education-the gross underpayment of teachers, forcing them from the teaching profession, and more and more discouraging students from enrolling in teachers' colleges; overcrowded classrooms; run-down buildings and equipment; and lack of any teaching facilities in many rural areas. All these factors are reflections of inadequate funds for our school system. The result is a dangerous degeneration of American education.

The need for Federal aid to education is seen also in the inequality of education among the States. These differences have existed over a long period of years, and will continue to exist unless something is done about it on a national level. It is estimated that, at the extremes, some children get 60 times as much educational opportunity as do others, measured by the amounts of money spent on education. Often the poorest States financially are the richest in children, thus further burdening their load. This unfair disparity is still further shown in the fact that the poorer States spend a greater percentage of their income on support of schools than do the wealthier States, even though their per capita expenditures are far below those of the richer States.

The length of the school term too differs widely in the various States, ranging from 148 days in Mississippi to 187 days in Illinois. Rural schools, which have the most deficiencies, also usually have shorter terms than do urban schools. There is inequality of education within as well as among most States. Even the richest States have so-called educational slums.

The Federal Government's responsibility in this picture seems obvious. It must see that no child is punished by mere accident of birthplace. It must equalize opportunities for all children. The lack of a Federal program these many years has resulted in some of the products brought out in last year's testimony. According to the 1940 census, 10,000,000 adults have insufficient schooling to meet the demands of modern life; 3,000,000 adults have not attended school of any kind; in West Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, one-third of the adult population has had less than 5 years of schooling; in 1940 2,000,000 school-age children were not attending school.

The very basis of American life, opportunity, can have little meaning unless a child has at least a basic minimum education. It would be denied by few that America has the resources and the technical skill to correct its educational deficiencies. We lack only the necessary unity of purpose.

In considering Federal aid for education we must be certain that any legislation promulgated really answers the needs. Under the formula proposed in S. 472

about half the States would be ineligible for Federal aid, and there is need for such aid in nearly every State of the Union. Among those States which do qualify for aid there is no minimum amount provided. And, most important of all, the educational floor of $40 proposed is not only extremely low for the richest country in the world but is inadequate to meet the gross deficiencies.

On the other hand, the $100 floor proposed in S. 199 would not only give adequate educational opportunities to those children who do not now have it but would raise the entire national level of education, because no States would be excluded.

However, the Congress of American Women does believe that the financial ability of each State should be taken into consideration through a system of variable matching grants-in-aid so that the more needy States will get a larger share. It believes, too, that the allotments should be granted to the States on the basis of the total number of school-age children in that State, rather than merely on the number of pupils enrolled in public schools. For it has been shown that there are many school-age children, particularly in rural areas, who are not now in school, and who could be if schools and teachers were made more easily available to them.

Both bills include some provision for the utilization of public funds by nonpublic schools. The apportionment of tax funds to institutions which are not available to all the citizens if of questionable validity. Indeed, such a proposal is in violation of one of the principles of the Constitution long upheld in the American way of life, the separation of church and state.

The overwhelming evidence of the long-overdue need for Federal aid to education should not longer go unheeded. For the reasons outlined above, the Congress of American Women strongly urges that legislation be immediately enacted to provide adequate minimal educational expenditures for every American child.

Senator ROBERT A. TAFT,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1947.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TAFT: I am addressing you as chairman of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to request that, in any legislation providing Federal aid for education that may be reported by this committee, the Territory of Hawaii be dealt with in all respects on identically the same basis as are the States.

Hawaii feels strongly that in all Federal legislation of this character it should receive equal treatment with the States. It does not want to be set aside for special treatment.

Hawaii's request for statehood has this as its basis. This principle is the only sound basis for determining the relationship of Hawaii and the rest of the country. It has been recognized as such by every committee of Congress which has examined the question of statehood for Hawaii and by both major political parties.

The general laws of the country including those providing for taxation all extend to Hawaii. The people of Hawaii not only pay the same taxes to the Federal Government as do the people of the States, but in the aggregate normally contribute to the Federal Treasury more than 14 to 15 States. On this basis alone Hawaii feels entitled to participate on equal terms with the States in legislation of this character.

Experience has shown this principle is sound in practice. It has been demonstrated by the inclusion of the Territory in the Federal Aid for Roads Act and many other similar measures on the same basis as the States.

On the contrary, the departure from this principle especially on the basis as has been proposed to your committee has proven to operate both unjustly and unfairly to Hawaii.

Section 4 of the National School Lunch Act (Public Law 396, 79th Cong.) provides that a specific limitation be placed on the apportionment of funds for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Inclusion of Hawaii with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in this limitation operates to the serious disadvantage of Hawaii. Economic standards prevailing in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are far below those of Hawaii. The population of Puerto Rico is four times that of Hawaii. The per capita income in Puerto Rico is $191 and in the Virgin Islands $115, whereas the per capita income in Hawaii is $1,061. The latter figure is close to the national average.

To bring Hawaii into competition with Puerto Rico for Federal aid funds where the measure used is the need of funds is extremely disadvantageous to Hawaii under the form of limitation prevailing in the School Lunch Act and proposed in at least one of the bills providing Federal aid for education. It is manifestly unfair as it imposes on Hawaii a burden that should be borne by all the States.

The Territory of Hawaii is dealt with on the same basis as the States in S. 81, S. 170, and S. 199, but becomes the object of special treatment in S. 472.

I should like to recommend therefore that in the event the method of apportionment embodied in S. 472 is adopted that it be amended so as to eliminate the reference to Hawaii in paragraph (G) on page 5, line 19.

The information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 4, on page 3, including the "number of children from 5 to 17 years of age" and the "average of the annual income payments for each State" can be very readily ascertained. The fact that this information may not be available in the Department of Commerce at the present time offers no reason why it cannot be obtained so that the Territory of Ĥawaii can be covered within this formula.

Enclosed for the information of yourself and the committee are letters on this legislation from Mr. Harold Loper, superintendent of public instruction of the Territory of Hawaii, and from Mrs. Elizabeth St. John, the president of the Hawaii Congress of Parents and Teachers, and a radiogram from Mr. James R. McDonough, executive secretary of Hawaii Education Association, relating to this legislation.

I should like to request that this correspondence be made a portion of the record of the hearings on this legislation. Yours sincerely,

J. R. FARRINGTON,
Delegate From Hawaii.

TERRITORY OF HAWAII,

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
Honolulu, April 25, 1947.

The HON. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON,
Delegate From Hawaii, House Office Building,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR JOE: Thank you for your letter of April 18 and the opportunity for studying the bills for Federal school aid.

On the basis of a rather hurried examination of the bills, I am glad to be able to give you our not too fully considered opinions.

S. 472 would appear to be the most desirable bill from the standpoint of meeting our problems in Hawaii. While it would probably provide the smallest amount in terms of dollars and while the clause for distribution of the 2 percent to offshore areas leaves something to be desired, there are some reasons why it would be preferable to the other three bills.

Since the bill states that the distribution is to be made "upon the basis of joint agreements made with their respective State educational authorities," it is possible that there is a degree of protection on this score although we should prefer to have it stated as a distribution on the basis of average daily attendance.

One of the most important reasons for our preference for this bill is that it would provide this department with a degree of freedom which it does not have under the present arrangement wherein the legislature controls and mandates individual expenditures. While we would use by far the greater portion of such funds for salary increases, it would make possible a marginal amount for use at the discretion of the Administration. Under the provisions of the Territorial Appropriations Act as it now stands, if S. 170 or S. 81 were to become law, we would not even be able to provide the clerical assistance necessary to make the payments of the increased salaries made possible by such Federal aid. Although we agree with the implications of these two bills that increase of teachers' salaries is of prime importance, there are some other real problems which could be met through the provisions of Federal aid as outlined in S. 472.

S. 199 has the same advantages as were mentioned in connection with S. 472, but is second in our preference chiefly because it seems to us less likely to gain favorable action both because of its generous terms and because it stirs up the issue of support for private schools. There is strong opposition to it in certain areas and we feel that a controversy might result in its failure. If, on the other hand, it should be your opinion that that very factor would strengthen rather than weaken it, we should be most happy to see S. 199 become law.

« PreviousContinue »