total area 10 times as large as Maryland.3 The development of other forms of Federal support for public education will be dealt with later in this report. The extreme variations in the size, population, and wealth of the States and local units contribute to the wide difference in the financial resources available for the schools. Variations in individual public school units range from the small district with a one-teacher school and a few pupils to the largest city system with an enrollment of approximately a million pupils 4-more than the combined pupil enrollments of the 11 States having the smallest populations.5 The significance of this fact is apparent when we consider that in some States the local units still bear more than 90 percent of the burden of school support. The States do not generally contribute to the support of church or private schools. Other important factors affecting school finance as a national problem are the mobility of the population, the proportionate number of children to be educated in different areas-that is, the number of children in relation to the total population in those areas, and the number attending private schools. Compilations of arguments, pro and con, concerning these and other aspects of the national problem have appeared in various publications within recent years.7 2. THE COST OF THE NATION'S SCHOOLS With respect to the number of persons affected public education is the biggest business in the United States. Sometimes a great corporation, such as an automobile manufacturing company, announces that it has served a million customers, usually over a period of year. During the single school year 1944-45, the latest year for which such data are available, the public schools of the United States served over 23,000,000 customers the total number of pupils enrolled in that year. These customers were served by a professionally trained staff of over 800,000 men and women 10-the public school teachers of America-composing about 12 percent of the working force of the whole country.11 During the school year 1944-45 the United States spent about 2.6 billion dollars for the operation of its public elementary and secondary schools, including the payment of salaries of the instructional staff.12 The cost of the schools was somewhat less than the 2.7 billion dollars which the people of this country spent for tobacco in the calendar year 1944. In the same year this Nation spent 7.1 billion dollars for alcoholic beverages.13 The total expenditure for the public schools during the school year, 1944-45 was approximately 1.6 percent of the estimated national income of $161,983,000,000 in calendar 1945.14 The cost per pupil during the school year was $129.82, or 73.8 cents per day for the school term of 175.8 days.15 The total cost of public elementary and secondary education in 1944-45 was $19.99 per person in the total population, estimated at 131,976,000 16 on July 1, 1945. During the school year 1944-45, the total amount spent in the United States for all types and levels of education, public and private, was about $3,500,000,000,17 or a little over 2 percent of the national income for 1945. England spent approximately 3 percent of her national income on public education alone during the fiscal year 1945-46.18 3 F. H. Swift. Federal and State Policies in Public School Finance. P. 59. Statistics of City School Systems, 1943-44. New York, Ginn & Co., 1931. Washington, U. S. Government Washington, U. S. Government 4U. S. Office of Education. Printing Office, 1946. P. 16. 5 U. S. Office of Education. Statistics of State School Systems, 1943-44. Priniting Office, 1946. Pp. 35-36. (Computation by the author of the present report.) 6 Ibid. p. 9. 7 Library of Congress. Legislative Reference Service. Federal Aid to the States for Education, by C. A. Quattlebaum. Public Affairs Bulletin No. 31, October 21, 1943, resisued May 6, 1944. Pp. 12-47. (And other sources.) 8 P. A. Wannamaker. The Challenge of Leadership. Address of the president of the National Education Association before the American Association of School Administration, Atlantic City, N. J., March 2, 1947. Processed. P. 2. 9U. S. Office of Education. Statistics of State School System, 1944-45. Statistical Circular, February 1947. P. 2. 10 Ibid. 11 U. S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Business, June 1945. P. 89. (Percent computed.) 12 U. S. Office of Education. Statistics of State School Systems, 1944-45. Statistical Circular, February 1947. p. 2. 13 Federal Aid to Education, Congressional Quarterly, Mar. 22, 1947. p. 99. 14 U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946. p. 270. 15 Data obtained from the Research and Statistical Service, U. S. Office of Education. Cost per pupil computed from average daily attendance and current expenses and interest for full-time day schools. 16 U. S. Bureau of the Census. Special Reports. Series P46, No. 3. 17 U. S. Office of Education estimate. 18 British Information Service, Washington, D. C. Percentage computed from data in publications of His Majesty's Government. During the calendar year 1945 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics spent about 28,600,000,000 current rubles on education, 19 over 8 percent of the national income of approximately 355,000,000,000 current rubles.20 While the comparability of data on expenditures for education in the Soviet Union and in the United States is questionable, it appears that in proportion to the national income the Russian people may be supporting education several times as generously as the people of the United States. According to George S. Counts, professor at Columbia University and author of a number of published studies of Soviet education, the Russians are spending a larger proportion of their income for education than any other people in history.21 The American Association of School Administrators has declared that in the United States the appropriations for schools should be tripled and the number of teachers should be doubled to meet the present demands for elementary and secondary education.22 It is expected that these demands will greatly increase within the next decade. In the 5 years following entry of this country into World War II about 13,000,000 babies were born in the United States, although population experts had predicted only 9,000,000, consequently elementary-school enrollments will increase rapidly until 1950. By 1953 the high schools will feel the surge and will expand rapidly until 1960.23 School enrollments after that are unpredictable. 3. FEDERAL POLICIES IN EDUCATION Although in most foreign countries public education is financed and administered by the national government alone, in the United States public education is still widely regarded primarily as a function of the State and local governments. Nevertheless the Federal Government has not only contributed to the support of the public schools throughout their history in the United States, but the Federal Government has also continually carried on educational activities of its own.24 Within recent decades these activities have become very extensive. The National Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Hoover reported in 1931 that practically all administrative units of the Federal Government were "concerned directly or indirectly with education." the committee pointed out that Federal educational activities included "liberal and vocational education, for both sexes and all ages, in school and out, reaching from the earliest primary education to the most advanced graduate and professional training." 25 The committee recommended establishment of a Department of Education with a Secretary in the President's Cabinet.26 The Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt reported in 1938 that almost every Federal agency carries on some educational functions or engages in activities bearing a relatively direct relationship to some phase of education. The committee recommended the establishment of an executive department of health, education and welfare, which would "facilitate the problem of coordinating educational activities." 27 In the same report the committee made the following observation which is significant to a consideration of the subject of Federal aid to elementary and secondary schools: "Past Federal participation in education has been required by the fact that locally supported programs of education have never been adequate to accomplish all vital national purposes. Their relative inadequacy is increasing, not because the local programs do not improve, but because they do not improve rapidly enough to meet increasing needs. "The ability of the States and local communities to provide education has always been unequal. That inequality has been magnified, however, by the recent great changes that have taken place in social and economic conditions. At the same time, education has become increasingly important. 20 U. S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Business, February 1946, p. 8. 21 George S. Counts. Remaking the Russian Mind, Asia and the Americas, October, 1945. p. 479. 22 American Association of School Administrators. Schools for a New World. 25th yearbook. Washington, D. C., 1947, p. 8. 23 Ibid., p. 71. 24 For a fuller discussion of this subject see High Lights in the Development of Federal Policies and Activities in Education, by Charles A. Quattlebaum, the Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Public Affairs Bulletin No. 30, April 1944, reissued 1946, 57 pp. 25 National Advisory Committee on Education. Federal Relations to Education (report of the committee), Washington, D. C., 1931, pt. I, pp. 5-6. 26 Ibid., p. 95. 27 U. S. Advisory Committee on Education. Report of the committee, Washington, D. C., 1938, p. 121. "When the entire long record of Federal activities in connection with education is considered, it is evident that throughout the years the Federal Government has been increasingly concerned with the development of educational opportunities. This trend may be expected to continue." 28 In 1943 the Office of War Information reported that the United States Army and Navy were operating "the largest adult school system in the world." 29 Even in time of peace the vast educational and training programs of the Army and Navy cost the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars annually.30 Other Federal educational programs include the Nation-wide educational activities of the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture, the support of Indian schools by the Department of the Interior, certain activities of the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State, vocational and academic education in the Federal Prison System under the Department of Justice, et cetera. While the Federal Government has taken up essential educational activities which the States could not feasibly or adequately administer, it has also given aid to the States in supporting certain types of education, principally vocational training. Except for land grants for common schools, aid to fundamental elementary and secondary education for all children has received comparatively little consideration by the Federal Government. A few of the highlights in the development of Federal policy in aid to the States and local governments for special types of education and related activities are the following:31 The Morrill Act of 1862 32 made grants of land, or script in lieu of land, for the endowment and support of at least one agricultural and mechanical college in each State. In 1887 the Congress began to make appropriations for an agricultural experiment station in each State. In 1914, under the Smith-Lever Act, the Federal Government initiated a program of cooperation with the States in extension work in agriculture and economics.34 An entirely new policy in education was introduced with the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, which provided for agricultural and industrial courses in secondary schools. In significantly entering the field of secondary education, the Federal Government established machinery for influencing the effort, policies, equipment, and teaching qualifications for vocational education in secondary schools.35 Federal funds for the purpose of cooperating with the several States in the vocational rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry were provided for the first time under provisions of a law enacted in 1920.36 Vocational education for physically disabled civilians was further provided for in the Social Security Act of 1939 and later amendments to this act. In 1943 the whole program of vocational rehabilitation was revised and extended.37 4. THE CURRENT QUESTIONS RELATING TO FEDERAL AID It is evident from the foregoing disucssion that the principle of the Federal Government's participation in the education of the national citizenry is well established. The fundamental question at present is not whether the Federal Government is going to share with the States and local governments the responsibility for financing education. It has been doing that since the dawn of its existence, and in increasing measure through the years, with strong public support. The principal question now is: Should the Federal Government further increase its participation in education, and, if so, how and to what extent? Out of this query arise several others, of which the following are important: First, with respect to the form of Federal participation in education or aid to the States in financing education 1. Should the Federal Government enlarge its own extensive educational activities (by adding, for example, a universal training program)? 28 Ibid., p. 17. 29 U. S. Office of War Information. Advanced release, August 15, 1943. OWI-2279, p. 1. 30 Information obtained from the Bureau of the Budget. 31 For further data see the source named in footnote 24. 32 12 Stat. 503-505. 33 24 Stat. 440-442. 24 38 Stat. 372-374. 35 F. S. Swift, Op. Cit. p. 49. 36 41 Stat. 735, ch. 219. 37 57 Stat. 374. 2. Should the Federal Government give support to additional special types of education in the public schools (such as those now carried on under specific Federal controls)? 3. Should the Federal Government give further aid to the States and Territories in financing their whole school systems under State and local administration? 4. Which of these types of Federal participation in education would involve the least or the most appropriate kind of Federal control? 5. How should the Federal Government aid in reducing inequalities of educational opportunity and in maintaining a minimum educational level for the national citizenry? 6. How can this be done without weakening the State and local effort for the support of the schools? Second, with respect to the extent of Federal participation 1. What proportion of our total national income do the people of this Nation wish to spend on elementary and secondary education? 2. What proportion of this expenditure should be borne by the Federal Government and what proportion by the States and local government? 3. What are the suitable bases for the distribution of Federal aid? 4. Should the Federal Government give assistance only to public schools or to all tax-exempt, nonprofit elementary and secondary schools? The answers to all these questions (and many others which might be raised in connection with this general problem) rest upon the premise that the education of our youth is of the highest importance to the maintenance of our democratic form of government, our national welfare, and the economic and social advancement of society.38 The current proposals for Federal aid usually imply grants by the Federal Government to the several States on the basis of need. Such grants would not be intended to take the place of the educational financial outlays now being provided by local communities and States, but to supplement these funds, which are widely believed to be insufficient. The purpose of equalization of educational opportunity, as expressed by advocates of further aid to the States for general elementary and secondary education, is to provide an equitable standard of education both within the States and between the various States and regions. PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, DEAR SIR: This communication is addressed to your committee on behalf of the American Teachers Association with a membership of 10,000 and affiliation of 20,000 teachers, and on behalf of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity with a membership of 9,000 college men scattered over the country. We of these organizations are exceedingly interested in Federal appropriations for public schools in this country. We are particularly interested in the kind of appropriations which will tend to equalize opportunities for American children without distinction as to national origin, race, or any minority status of their parents. On behalf of these organizations I am writing to approve S. 472, Educational Finance Act of 1947, introduced by Senator Robert Taft et al. We believe it to be the most promising of the several bills which have come to our attention. We, however, urge that the provisions for the $40 minimum expenditure per child as one of the requirements for the eligibility of a State to receive benefits from Federal appropriations, be raised to at least $50 expenditure per child. It would seem unnecessary to array arguments in favor of this change as there have been increases in living and other costs since the bill was introduced Moreover, there is a very strong movement now in the interest of increasing teachers' salaries If this increase reaches proportions expected, this alone would strongly tend to out-mode the $40 minimum expenditure Accordingly, we urge this revision We think also that the bill could be strengthened by amending it explicitly so as to require rather definite and detailed accounting to the United States Office of Education where minorities are concerned and the publication of accounting, Along with this provision should go the rights of the individual to enter complaint in case of failure of the State to live up to its obligations under the proposed law 38 76th Cong., 1st sess., Senate, Committee on Education and Labor. Minority views on S. 1305. Report No. 244, pt. 3, June 13, 1939. p. 1. and to have his complaint adjudicated in court. The rights to benefit under this proposed law are specific and apply to the individual. Therefore, the individual should be authorized to enter complaint of injustice under its administration. Finally, these two organizations go on record emphatically as endorsing the principle of educational support from the Federal Government since with the high mobility of the population of this country, education cannot be regarded as a purely State function. Sincerely yours, HOWARD H. LONG, American Teachers Association and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Nashville, Tenn., April 18, 1947. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: I understand that your committee has under consideration S. 472, a bill to provide Federal aid to education for the States which are in need of assistance. I would like to say that as Governor of Tennessee I heartily endorse the provisions of this bill and I hope you will do what you can to obtain its passage. We, of course, would be interested only in Federal aid for public education which made specific provision that the control of education remain in the hands of State government. The Seventy-fifth General Assembly has recently enacted the most far-reaching school legislation in the history of our State. State appropriations for schools are $34,697,538, or approximately double any previous appropriation for public education in Tennessee. However, we are still below the average for the United States. With the passage of the new school legislation and a sales tax bill to finance it we have just about exhausted our means of further support for education. Approximately one-fourth of the teachers of our State this year are substandard as weighed by the minimum standards prescribed by our State board of education and this situation appears to be national in scope. The average training of our elementary teachers has been cut from 3 years of college to 11⁄2 years of college. The number of men teachers in our schools has been cut in half. There is a minimum number of people enrolled in our colleges who are planning to teach. In fact the situation has become very critical in Tennessee, and I fear that what we have been able to do at the State level will not be enough to restore our schools to the standards they had achieved before the war, to say nothing of raising the standards to what they should be. I know the problems you face in Congress are numerous and great, but I know of nothing that will do more to help us solve the problems which we face in this country than to expend wisely money for the education of the boys and girls of our country. Any consideration which you may give to this matter will be appreciated. With all good wishes, JIM MCCORD, Governor. From: Theodore Miller, legislative representative for: Students for Democratic Action, 1740 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. To: Mr. Philip R. Rodgers, Clerk of Senate Subcommittee on Education and Labor. For: Inclusion in hearings on Federal Aid to Education. Students for Democratic Action endorse fully the principle of Federal aid to education. The Students for Democratic Action are particularly aware of the lamentable condition of America's schools today. The membership of our organization is composed largely of college and university students; they have experienced at first hand the inadequacies of our school system which most Americans appreciate and deplore. They have only recently come from secondary schools that are overcrowded, that are working on double shifts, that have at times had three and four different teachers for the same course over a period of 8 or 9 months. At our national convention in Washington, D. C., March 28-30, 1947, we adopted as the first plank of our program for action for 1947-48, under the heading of Student economic needs, the following statement: "We support legislation for Federal aid to State educational programs, labor education, increased vocational |