spells out statewide testing programs as well. Both have scholarship programs that would logically be the capstone of guidance, counseling, and testing. If a State, for whatever reason, should set up a State scholarship commission which, in operation, would divorce itself from the process and results of the guidance, counseling, and testing programs, both the effects of the guidance, counseling, and testing programs and the incentives for such programs would be largely lost.

The administration's bill is likely, because of the vagueness of the provision for establishment of the State scholarship commission, to separate in some States the guidance, counseling, and testing provided for in title I, part A, from the scholarship program authorized in title I, part B. The Hill-Elliott bill provides that the State scholarship commission shall have representatives of scientific, educational, and public interests of the State, with representation from both secondary and higher education. It is clear in its provision for the State scholarship commission, insures that the commission shall be broadly representative of the educational and citizen interests in the State, and tends to encourage coordination of the guidance, counseling, and testing with the scholarship awards program.

I might add there that Secretary Folsom and Assistant Secretary Richardson, who have had primary responsibility for drafting the administration's bill are in accord with this testimony so far as I can tell, but there are certain general rules in the Bureau of the Budget which led to the language which we think would cause considerable difficulties in the States.

MATCHING

Now with regard to matching under titles I and II, the administration's bill authorizes $25 million annually for State educational agencies to assist in the early discovery of student aptitudes through guidance, counseling, and testing, and to strengthen State action in teacher training, supervision, curriculum modernization, and related activities in support of science and mathematics instruction.

Title III authorizes Federal funds for improving State statistics in education. All three titles require 50-50 matching for all Federal funds used for State administration.

The Hill-Elliott bill authorizes Federal funds for State administrative expenses in titles II, Scholarships; VI, Summer School and Extension Courses for Teachers; VIII, Guidance and Counseling; IX, Science, Mathematics and Modern Foreign Language Consultants; and XII, Vocational Education in Occupations Essential to National Defense. None of these funds for State administration requires matching.

The difference is very important to the State educational agencies, especially during the first year. We strongly favor the Hill-Elliott matching provisions for practical reasons, while lauding the administrative structure and generosity of the administration's bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. May I just interrupt there, Dr. Fuller? As I understand your testimony, the Hill-Elliott bill does not require matching.

Mr. FULLER. Not on the administrative funds.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You cannot favor matching provisions if they do not have any requirement for matching.

-1

Mr. FULLER. I stand corrected there. We stand in favor of the Hill-Elliott bill on matching provisions in these particular regions. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Of course, I would like to call attention to this. Mr. Kearns, of Pennsylvania, objected when we had the school construction bill with the Federal Government having anything to do with what he considered State property. It might be nice for States not to have to share in any obligations, to participate in these programs; but one of the functions, it seems to me, of a Federal program, is to encourage other levels of the government to do more along the proper lines. In other words, stimulation would be lacking if the Federal Government put up all the money for the State responsibilities.

Mr. FULLER. I think later in the testimony you will see that the council is not against matching as such. It is against matching immediately, which is impossible in many States. In most States, it would postpone the entire program a year.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If we are talking about expediting a program we might have a suspension of the requirement for the first year. Mr. FULLER. That is our suggestion later in the testimony.

Mr. Chairman, only 17 State legislatures meet in regular sessions during 1958. Before any of the Federal legislation you are now considering is likely to become law, and before plans can be made for its administration in the States, these 17 legislatures will have adjourned, most of them until January 1959.

State educational agencies can seldom match the Federal funds for State administration without legislative action, and the amounts involved would scarcely justify expensive special sessions of State legislatures. Matching provisions will probably delay the program a full year for many States.

If matching requirements for the administrative expenses of State educational agencies under titles I, II, and V of the administration's bill are necessary from the viewpoint of your committee, we respectfully suggest that any such matching feature be postponed 1 year.

In other words, I have recently talked around the table with 12 far western chief State school officers only a week ago. Two weeks before that, President Holden and I talked with 13, I believe, around the table from the middlewest and south in St. Louis.

One chief State school officer after another said that they could not meet these matching requirements the first year in their States. They were very serious about that regardless of their viewpoints about ultimate matching.

So, as we have pleaded with Secretary Folsom, with Commissioner Derthick, and with Assistant Secretary Elliott Richardson to postpone the matching for 1 year, we again plead with this committee to make the bill practicable on matching provisions because the States simply cannot match with their legislatures not in session and with these amounts involved.

I think, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that the reason the matching provisions of the Hill-Elliott were used, there was not a specific use of that term, because there are some provisions in the Hill-Elliott bill that do require matching. So I think it could be taken literally as well as in the sense that I explained on these particular State administration provisions.

ADEQUACY

We believe the Hill-Elliott bill is more adequate for the needs of the times than that proposed by the administration, insofar as the amount of Federal funds to be authorized is concerned. The MurrayMetcalf bill is more adequate than either, and is more in accord with the basic policies of the council than either of the bills which provide for multiple special aids. The later are acceptable only if they are the best the Congress will enact.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Let me interrupt at that point, Mr. Fuller. I have not read the Murray-Metcalf bill, but my understanding was that related to school construction. Is that correct?

Mr. FULLER. And salaries of teachers. There are two titles.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have one question on this problem of adequacy.

So many times we talk about the adequacy of a bill only in terms of the amount of dollars that may be expended. You seem to say that{ the more money we can expend, the more quality the bill has.

I wonder if it is really true. Certainly, the amount of money that would be allotted for the 10,000 scholarships would be more or less adequate to handle the 10,000 scholarships. If you have 40,000 scholarships, you may have to have 4 times as much money. But it does not necessarily follow, does it, that one is more adequate than the other unless you say the Federal responsibility really is to provide sufficient funds to give scholarships to everybody who needs them or everybody who is presently not going on to school.

In other words, 100,000 scholarships would be more adequate than 10,000. Of course, there would be more, but whether the Federal function would be served better by providing 100,000 scholarships, I think is a very important question.

Mr. FULLER. I agree that it would not. I think the reply to that is that the reservoir of need is so great that 10,000 will not be enough to cause the stimulation that is required, that 40,000 is still comparatively small. Twenty thousand would be twice as good as 10, because the second 10,000 scholarships would go to people as needing and as deserving as the first 10,000.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Again, I do not really want to argue with you, Mr. Fuller, because I think we are certainly both in favor of the same general principle, but I think there have been arguments presented that the 10,000 scholarships may overstimulate interest in young people in going to college and thereby, hopelessly overburdening what will be heavily taxed facilities, the institutions of higher learning. If you give 40,000, it will provide even more excessive stimulation and overburdening on these college facilities.

Again, looking at the national merit scholarships, very few scholarships have any very tremendous effect on the numbers who take them or the respect with which the winners are held back home. So the 10,000 scholarships are not necessarily limited to just the ones who receive the direct benefit. The Federal stimulation will be far broader than that.

Mr. FULLER. I agree with that. I think it is a matter of degree and a matter of fitting in the provisions of any proposed legislation to see what it will do, to see what its impact will be on the problem which it attempts to solve.

98049-58-pt. 3—8

To go back to the large figures, that is the total enterprise of education, if you were to choose the way that you would like to add a billion dollars for the support of elementary and secondary public school, you would be adding 8.5 percent to the support of the elementary and secondary public schools.

Leaving aside for the moment, the means, an 8.5-percent increase in the support of the elementary and secondary school, I think, would be regarded as highly desirable by everyone. The difference of opinion would be whether it comes from local taxes or State taxes or Federal taxes or some combination of those sources.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not arguing that the educational system could not use substantially more every year. What worries me is the assumption that the bigger a Federal program is, the more adequate it is.

It seems to me we might begin to lose ground and not gain it, if we get into this kind of a program or into a variety of programs such as we are presently considering, too vigorously, it will result in a lack of effort. It will create the feeling that the Government will provide scholarships, and the Ford Foundation and business will not need to worry about it. There is so much more available since we have shown our generosity, once we can be persuaded to show it, even more vigorously later on.

Mr. FULLER. I understand your concern, and I might even add that over a period of many years some of us have felt the same way about 1 or 2 States where the State has assumed more than three-quarters of the total cost of education. In those 1 or 2 States, the local initiative and the local participation in some districts has been undermined.

I remember debating it in 1947 and debating on the side of reducing the State aid, the same principle there that is involved. That is, it ought to be a process where the balance of payments by the levels of government is appropriate.

Our principal point here in that regard is that 57 percent, national average, on the local real estate tax which bears 98 percent of the local cost for schools, even though less for other public services, 40 percent is State shared and 3 percent federally shared, in view of the cold hard facts of the tax system, and the way the competitors for the educational tax dollar operate, is not a balanced financial affair for education.

That case, I think is a very strong case. You get into large numbers before you vary the Federal participation very much from 3 percent.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Again, what worries me is, just as an example, my own State. It has no State income tax, no State sales tax. It is presently considering a State scholarship program. What incentive is there for us to develop additional sources to support our school systems or additional ways in which to support our schools, if we are going to be taxed a lot more than we will get back in order to support a Federal program? What I am afraid of is that we will inject ourselves so vigorously into this thing because the tax sources are so limitless at the national level that we will bypass and reduce the effort which logically could be made and should be made at the State

level.

Mr. FULLER. I would be against that, I think, as much as you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How can you prevent it?

Mr. FULLER. I do not think you have to worry about preventing it as long as you keep the Federal participation in one digit percentagewise.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One digit might make all the difference of doing something or doing nothing at other levels, in my opinion.

Mr. FULLER. I talked to the commissioner of your State for half an hour yesterday on the telephone, and he told me about two cases he had. In one case in a New Jersey school district the debt service and the current cost for capital outlay is $85 a pupil per year. In this particular school district it is so heavy that the commissioner says it is intefering seriously with their current educational budget for the payment of teachers and for other current expenses.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. An intolerable burden at the local level does not mean that there is a Federal responsibility in itself. It means that there is a responsibility for some other level of government to come in and help out.

In my opinion, in a great many States, there has not been enough done.

Mr. FULLER. Not necessarily. New Jersey has made great strides in recent years. All of these are in spite of those individuals.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to see them continue to make those efforts. I do not want to do anything at the Federal level which would prevent them from even considering such action.

Mr. ELLIOTT. The gentleman from West Virginia has a question.

Mr. BAILEY. Dr. Fuller, I recall a previous testimony before this subcommittee indicated that there are approximately 200,000 highschool graduates available annually that should and are qualified for entrance into college. Whether you take the administration's program of 10,000 scholarships or whether you take the Hill-Elliott proposal of say 40,000, what recommendations do you have to make to this committee that we do about the other 190,000 or the 160,000 that possibly ought to be in college, too?

Mr. FULLER. On that point, Mr. Bailey, I would be inclined to recognize the point that Mr. Frelinghuysen has made.

The Federal Government would not be under any obligation to meet the full need. I think that the Federal Government's responsibility is to supplement the State and local resources and that either 10,000 would supplement or 40,000 would supplement and the 40,000 would supplement more; therefore we like it better.

Mr. BAILEY. The way it works out, Doctor, usually is that too many do not get an opportunity to go to college because they are not financially able to go to college. My State is largely industrial and mining. The boy coming out of a mining family does not have the money to go to college. He gets drafted into the Army. Some of the others are more fortunate and go to college and get an exemption from military service. There are those angles. I just wonder what you propose to do about those who do not get the scholarships.

Mr. FULLER. There is a multiplicity of effort, a great deal of effort at the State level. Increasing numbers of States now have scholarship programs of their own. Then there are private scholar