Federal Aid to Education

Now, I do not want to be unnecessarily dramatic about this. I may say that whether you are thinking of the good life in peacetime. or the safe life in wartime, we had better be keeping all of our resources in order, capitalizing them, and above all, human resources.

Just one more question. Do you believe that the $250,000,000 which will ultimately be appropriated by the Federal Government to the support of education in the States is adequate to meet the crisis? Dr. NORTON. I think it will be a substantial and very desirable step toward meeting the crisis. In the States that are having the greatest difficulty, it will practically double their educational expenditures. Now, that will be an opportunity almost beyond calculation to improve education in those States. It would, of course, be better if we wanted to spend a larger sum. The issue involved here is how much you are willing to spend.

I am like Will Rogers, Mr. Chairman. All I know is what I read in the newspapers. It seems to me I have read in the newspapers recently that there are some Congressmen who are not anxious to spend any more money than they have to. In such a situation. what do you do when you see something that must be, should be, taken care of? Do you take care of it on a very expensive basis, running up to $1,000,000,000 or more? It would be fine to do it. I really think it would be a good investment. But the probability is, as I say, from what I read in the newspapers, that you are more likely to recommend some more nominal sum.

Now, if I am all right so far, what should I do with that sum? I think you ought to put it down at the place where children are being denied practically all decent educational opportunity. Then at some future time, maybe when the situation is better, we can take account of the situation in the country as a whole.

I would be glad to do that now, as far as I am concerned. But it all depends, if you will answer the question; how much money is going to be available in toto, then I am pretty certain that I can tell how it ought to be distributed, whether it ought to be distributed over the whole country to a certain degree, or whether it ought to be focused. The "squeak" in education is in the poorer parts of the country.

Senator AIKEN. There is a great deal of strength to your argument, Doctor, to the argument that we have a practical political situation confronting us, with an economy-minded Congress constantly being urged to be more economy-minded by the economy-minded. But we also must take into consideration the practical political situation which arises from an effort to enact in the Congress a bill which provides for only half the States in the Union and so we have the political considerations from both sides coming in on us. They must be resolved in some way. We have those who insist on economy and cut appropriations and then we also have the States that are also economy-minded but which would get no benefit from an appropriation which was too small to anywhere near meet the demands, and after all it is the wealthy States that pay the bill whichever formula is adopted under S. 199.

New York pays about 21 to 22 percent of the income taxes of the country and it receives back about 8 percent of the funds allocated.

- Dr. NORTON. About $95,000,000 at the peak.

Senator AIKEN. Yes, $95,000,000; but actually New York would be paying into the Government $3,000,000,000 or $4,000,000,000 in order to get back $95,000,000. But it would probably taste better to the people of New York to see something coming back.

Senator IVES. Dr. Norton, I want to concur in that observation. Dr. NORTON. If you tell me that Congress is willing to vote a Federal-aid bill of more than $1,000,000,000, I would applaud and then I would immediately be happy to sit down to revise this bill. Of course, on the question of now to handle that, I mean in its practical political aspects, I think a mere college professor had better defer to statesmen.

Senator AIKEN. As for the State of New Jersey, New Jersey pays 3.2 percent of the income tax of the United States and would receive back 2.71 percent of the allocation. So New Jersey would not be badly off.

Senator SMITH. I do not understand how you calculated that. I did not figure we would get anything out of that.

Dr. NORTON. Would it not really be a more realistic statement of the situation if we said this: That the United States Government collects from citizens of the United States who happen to live in that peculiar territory where the wealth accumulates and to which the whole country contributes.

Senator AIKEN. I am glad you said, "accumulates."

Dr. NORTON. They pay a larger amount than citizens who do not live in such favorable situations.

Senator AIKEN. I am glad you said, "accumulates," instead of, "originates."

Dr. NORTON. It is partly, "originates." But a good deal of it is accumulation. Every time you buy a life-insurance policy or a stock or bond, the probability is that even though you live in California or Florida, you contribute to the wealth of several United States citizens from whom the tax is collected who happens to live in New York City. Senator AIKEN. That is right; and with 60 percent of the people moving out of the State in which they were born and spent their early years, there is no reason in the world why they do not become a national responsibility.

Dr. NORTON. If it cost New York State and New Jersey and California, the more favored States economically, twice what it will cost them under Federal aid to education, it would be a good investment for them. After all, they cannot sell their books and their newspapers and their clothing and the things that are manufactured in New York to people who are so terribly poor that they cannot afford them. And how do you correct poverty? Well, you do it by various means, but one of the most effective means, is as the United States Chamber of Commerce has demonstrated, through the right kind of education.

Senator AIKEN. And if the Federal Government should spend several times the highest amount which has been suggested for educational purposes, that amount still would be far less than the cost to us during the last war incurred by having 5,000,000 men disqualified by reason of poor health or lack of education.

Dr. NORTON. You are right.

Senator HILL. I want to express my appreciation to the doctor. He has been here several times, as the distinguished chairman knows.

He has always made a very fine, informative statement. Certainly your statement this morning was most excellent.

Dr. NORTON. Thank you very much.

May I ask permission to have inserted in the record some additional charts of this type for the different States, that bring out in another way the disparities in educational support? These two charts merely show this area here as representing the level of support in New York State. This is representative of the State of Mississippi-the same charts that are in the booklet, Unfinished Business in American Education.

Senator AIKEN. Without objection, that will be done.

Dr. NORTON. Thank you very much. Now may I have permission to enter several other charts in the record? Earlier I presented charts for New York State and Mississippi representing two very different types. These additional charts will show some of the variations among the States. All of these charts are in the booklets, which you have, entitled "Unfinished Business in American Education." This bulletin summarizes a much longer and detailed survey.1

(Dr. Norton submitted the New York, Mississippi, and other charts which appear on pages following.)

Senator AIKEN. Are there any other questions to ask of Dr. Norton? If not, we will call the next witness, Mr. Ralph B. Jones, State commissioner of education, Little Rock, Ark.

(Dr. Norton submitted the following brief:)

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

This testimony deals with the need for Federal financial aid for education, and the need for legislation similar to that proposed in S. 472, Eightieth Congress. Several considerations indicate that these needs exist. These considerations will be dealt with in turn.

1. THERE SHOULD BE FEDERAL AID FOR EDUCATION BECAUSE DENIAL OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND GROSS INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ARE FAR TOO PREVALENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Astonishing and shocking disparities in the amount and kind of schooling provided American children occur in different sections, States, and localities. These differences range all the way from virtual denial to many children of any opportunity to go to school in some places to the provision of splendid school facilities for all children in other places. That this situation exists has been revealed by a long series of extensive and careful investigations. Let us recall the findings of some of the studies.

The Advisory Committee on Education of the Federal Government arrived at these conclusions: "Education can be made a force to equalize the condition of men. It is no less true that it may be a force to create class, race, and sectional distinctions. The evidence indicates clearly that the schools of the United States, which have hitherto been regarded as the bulwark of democracy, may in fact become an instrument for creating those very inequalities they were designed to prevent. "We must deal, therefore, with a situation in which opportunity is a birthright attached to certain families and certain geographic areas. A child born in those favored places has opportunity plus; one born outside has opportunity minus.10

The Advisory Committee on Education. Report of the Committee. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1932. Pp. 33 and 39.

1a An Inventory of Public School Expenditures in the United States, by John K. Norton and Eugene S. Lawler. Report of the Cooperative Study of Public School Expenditures, American Council on Education, 744 Jackson Place NW., Washington, D. C., 1944, 1 vol., 409 pp., mimeographed, $3.