A letter from Stephen S. Jackson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Personnel and Reserve, dated March 20, 1958, with which there is included a statement styled "Major Department of Defense Educational Programs in Scientific and Professional Fields." A letter dated March 14, 1958, from the Constitution Party of Virginia, signed by Mr. B. M. Miller, and denominated his testimony on these bills. Without objection, all of these letters and statements and testimony will be made a part of the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow :) CHIEF CLERK, AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: On behalf of the American Educational Research Association I am writing you to support the Elliott bill, H. R. 10381, "The National Defense Education Act of 1958." Would you be good enough to transmit this letter to the members of the committee considering the bill? It is a letter which speaks for the children and teachers of the United States, most of whom cannot speak to Congress for themselves. The American Educational Research Association, an organization of research people in school systems, colleges, and universities, since 1915 has been dedicated to the belief that the long-term improvement of education in this country is best based on careful, scientific research into educational problems. The 1,400 members of the organization from all parts of the United States are people who concentrate, not on public debate about educational problems, but on careful study of methods and materials by which children and adolescents learn best in schools. Accordingly, the association wishes especially to commend provisions of the Elliott bill which give as one of its purposes "to assist teachers to increase their knowledge and improve their effectiveness." The members of the association commend the provisions of the bill dealing with improved student guidance, scholarships, and loan funds, and steps to improve the teaching of mathematics, science, and foreign languages, but it wishes especially to support the proposal that funds be provided for research on the development and use of newer methods and materials of instruction. The association hereby endorses and commends the provisions of the Elliott bill which state that the Commissioner of Education is authorized to conduct, assist, and foster research on the development and use of television, radio, motion pictures, and related mediums of communication which may prove of value in education. The association believes that the money provided in the bill for this purpose should be authorized in addition to certain funds for educational research now administered by the Commissioner of Education. At its annual meeting in February 1957 our association passed a resolution favoring the formation of an Institute for Research in Education for stimulation and conduct of research in many educational fields. The members of the association believe that other funds should be made available for research on learning and instruction in areas which extend beyond the use of the mass communications mediums in school work. On behalf of the members of this association who believe in the research approach to educational problems, may I thank you and the members of the committee for your consideration of this letter? Faithfully yours, DAVID H. RUSSELL, President, American Educational Research Association. 98049-58-pt. 3- -41 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC., Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, Chairman, House Education Subcommittee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: We submit, for the record, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons' position against Federal aid to education. We earnestly solicit your committee's careful consideration of our views. Sincerely, HARRY E. NORTHAM, Executive Secretary. STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC., BY DR. CYRUS W. ANDERSON, PRESIDENT We believe that Federal aid to education for any purpose will ultimately offer a serious threat to freedom in America. Roger Freeman stated on October 31, 1956, "Dollars and Sense in Education," an address delivered to the annual meeting of the Civic Federation of Chicago: "Our schools are the last great bulwark of State and local autonomy. If the schools fall to Federal influence they will not only further deteriorate; they will set the pattern for more and more powers to go to Washington until our States are left empty shells, and reminders of what once was a great Federal union of sovereign States." Mr. Freeman is an exceptionally well-qualified authority having served on President Eisenhower's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (Education Committee) and consultant on school finance for the White House Conference on Education. “A The proponents of Federal aid for schools have built an enormously effective propaganda and lobbying machine. Much of the propaganda is fictional. Nevertheless, they have used it so cleverly a majority of Americans (according to the Gallup poll) gullibly have accepted as fact these excuses for Federal aid. national educational crisis," "a dire emergency," "classroom shortages," "persecuted and underpaid teachers," "disgraceful shortage of teachers," are some of the attention-getting slogans which have been scattered far and wide-and recklessly for public consumption, unfortunately, with telling effect. More recently, the administration and some congressional leaders have been disturbed by the fact that Russia is graduating more scientists than the United States, and the blame for the condition is laid to lack of educational facilities and personnel. Regarding the slogans for Federal aid, what is fact and what is fiction? The National Education Association and other professional educationists invariably blame lack of money for bad education. On the other hand, there are a number of distinguished educational authorities who blame bad education on poor teaching and neglect of the teaching of the basic three R's to high-school students. This is advanced by Dr. I. I. Rabi, famous physicist and Nobel prize winner, He told Congress that one of the reasons for the decline in our engineering and scientific talent "is inadequate preparation in the fundamental subjects which would enable students to enter into science and engineering courses at college." President Harold W. Dodds (Princeton University) declares "high school graduates no longer have as firm a grasp on the basic three R's-with all that they imply as they had a quarter century ago." (Roger Freeman, October 31, 1956.) This is good evidence from recognized authorities that Federal aid to education would in no way overcome the deficiency of engineering and scientific talent. The slogan excuses for Federal aid that schools and teachers are being discriminated against in the allocation of public funds and this causes dire shortages are completely refuted by Mr. Freeman (October 31, 1956) through thoroughly documented facts and figures. Here is the truth: "The cost of education accounts for about one-third of all State and local expenditures; education is gaining on the other public services-between 1940 and 1955 State and local tax collections increased 201 percent while State and local expenditures for education increased 351 percent. During the past 5 years, 1950 to 1955, State and local expenditures for public schools increased 73 percent-expenditures for all other purposes, including those financed with Federal aid, 39 percent. Between 1900 and 1955 public school enrollment doubled and school operating costs multiplied 43 times." Mr. Freeman says: "The plain fact is that school funds have consistently risen faster than enrollment, prices, or other public services and are continuing to do so." A 1956 United The American people are not doing too poorly by their schools. Nations' world survey of education showed that the United States has the highest per capita expenditure for education ($77 per capita) and spends a larger share of its national income on education than any other nation. Mr. Freeman proves that the shortage of teachers in classrooms is somewhat of a myth and that local and State communities are keeping ahead of their educational problems without Federal aid. Between fall 1954, and fall 1955, enrollment increased 1.1 million. At a classroom size of 30 pupils this would have required 36,000 additional teachers and classrooms. Actually, the number of teachers in the public schools increased 69,000 and we built 60,000 classrooms. So it seems that there are many flaws and weaknesses in the argument that there is a need for Federal subsidization of the schools and that Federal cash will solve so-called educational problems. There are many sound, logical, and moral reasons against Federal aid to education to counteract the nebulous arguments advanced for it by the socialistic proponents. One of the most convincing is the report of the Education Committee of the President's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations which stated: "We have not been able to find a State which cannot afford to make more money available to its schools or which is economically unable to support an adequate school system *** Federal aid is not necessary either for current operating expenses for public schools or for capital expenditures for new school facilities." Federal aid for schools-for any purpose is morally wrong because it will lead to Federal control. A 1942 decision of the Supreme Court reads as follows: "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes" (317 U. S., p. 131, last sentence of first paragraph decision by Justice Jackson in case of Wickard v. Filburn, 1942). Despite this now well-known Supreme Court decision, the Parent Teachers Association without regard to the serious consequence, continues to seek Federal aid for school legislation with the meaningless words: "We recommend the inclusion of provisions that will insure maximum local control." In the face of this decision, the National Education Association persists in its disgraceful effort to fool American fathers and mothers that Federal aid can be had without Federal control. Among the many instances in other fields of Federal interference, we have a specific example of Federal control following Federal aid to education. In 1916 Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act providing financial aid for local vocational educational systems. Prior to passage, its proponents shouted to the housetops that the measure would not bring about Federal controls. Exactly the reverse has happened. Federal regulations have been expanded over the years and are now printed in an 108-page book, Administration of Vocational Education (published by the Government Printing Office). As Russell Turner points out (Human Events, November 24, 1956), only one sentence on page 4 is necessary to prove that the Federal Government controls vocational education. It reads: "Each State is required to submit a plan which must meet with the approval of the Federal Office of Education." If one has further doubts, here is what Representative August E. Johansen (Republican, Third District, Michigan) has to say: "No statutory provision in the world can provide adequate safeguard against Federal control of education once Federal financial support of education is an accepted principle." In 1950 the late Representative John Lesinski (Democrat of Michigan), a student of and advocate for Federal aid to education, emphasized the fact that the Federal Government would control that which it subsidizes (AAPS News Letter, April 1950, vol. 4, No. 3). Representative Lesinski at the time was chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee which devoted a large amount of time to the study of Federal aid to education. His committee killed the Federal aid proposal which was under consideration and Chairman Lesinski gave as the reason for this action, the following: "It is impossible to draft a general Federal aid to education bill which will not contain a great degree of Federal control over local school systems. I am convinced, after the hard study we have put to the question, that no acceptable bill preventing Federal domination of local schools can be drawn. I reluctantly come to that conclusion, but I had to face the facts." The contention has been made by both the President and professional educationists that Federal aid to schools will be a "one shot" program, or only temporary. Make no mistake about it, "one shot" Federal aid is as fantastically unrealistic as only "one shot" for the dope addict. And there is a mountain of evidence to prove it. One example: The Hill-Burton Hospital Construction Act, a measure foisted on the American people as "temporary," has been continued and expanded by almost every Congress during the past 10 years. Despite President Eisenhower's disarming statement, "once this shortage (of classrooms) is overcome, the Federal grant program can and must terminate," the Federal aid advocates are not planning it that way. When Adlai Stevenson, head of the Stevenson-Democrats, addressed the annual convention of the National Education Association on July 6 of 1956 and outlined his plan for Federal aid for schools, he used the words and expressions "start," "over the longer run," and he topped off his address with "yet there should be no evading the fact that the composite program I am suggesting here will be expensive, and it is just a 'beginning'." It is easily apparent that the National Education Association is not working for a Federal aid program on a terminal emergency basis. The goal of the NEA is a permanent all-out type of Federal aid to education. When testifying before a Senate committee in 1956, Dr. William G. Carr, executive secretary of the National Education Association, said: "*** As long as our schools are cut off from the most powerful and efficient and productive form of taxation that we have (Federal taxation, of course), so long will they fail to receive a reasonable share of the great wealth and income of our country." Not by the farthest stretch of the imagination could Dr. Carr's statement be interpreted to mean "temporary" aid. The NEA's goal of permanent Federal interference in the Nation's schools is further substantiated by a statement in the February 1956 NEA Journal by Dr. John K. Norton, head of the department of educational administration at Teachers College, Columbia University: "* * * even if $500 million (a year) were voted for school building aid, it would represent only a 'first step' toward adequate Federal participation in the financial support of education in the United States." We do not question the sincerity of President Eisenhower's statement: "Once this shortage is overcome, the Federal grant program can and must terminate." We do regret his naivety in believing that once started, the program ever can or will terminate. Once the new educational bureaucracy has established its foothold in the Federal Government, the bureaucratic employees will perpetuate themselves in their jobs by employing statistics to prove the existence of new "emergencies." And if political history follows its customary course, electionyear Congresses will accept the statistics-rigged or not-and vote more giveaways for political expediency. Obviously, this administration or Congress cannot do anything binding on future administrations or Congresses. When the principle is established, it will be perpetual. In testimony before the same congressional committee in 1956, Dr. Carr of the NEA dispelled any doubts as to the ultimate goal for permanent Federal aid. He asserted that failure to recognize the economic necessity of access to Federal tax support is "*** the real obstacle beside which all the petty details of tinkering with some local tax rate or some State statute about debt limitations are as molehills to mountains." This expression of contempt for State and local support of the American public schools indicates clearly and conclusively that the NEA seeks to bypass the 48 States and the some 57,000 school districts for financial support of the schools and substitute the Federal Government-only one large centralized authority to which their propaganda for progressive educational systems of mediocrity and one-worldism would need to be directed. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., holds that Federal aid to schools is undesirable because it is financially impractical. The Federal Government produces nothing and has no money of its own to spend except that which it extracts by compulsion from taxpayers. Since the Federal Governement is approximately $276 billion in debt-not counting social-security commitments of about $280 billion-realistically, it has no honest money to spend for Federal aid programs of any kind. During 1956, public schools cost the States and local communities about $10 billion. The proposed Federal aid program would have boosted that total by 22 percent to 4 percent, which is less than half the average annual increase from State and local funds in recent years. For instance, in 1955 there was an increase of $1 billion over the aggregate State and local support of schools for the year 1954. After the Federal brokerage fees to finance the proposed educational bureaucracy, with its blundering ineptitude and extravagant practices, were deducted from the appropriated Federal funds, percentagewise, the amounts of Federal aid would be almost infinitesimal-and yet a tremendous additional burden on taxpayers. Governor Stratton of Illinois confirmed this in 1956 in a statement: "We do not need Federal aid for schools in Illinois *** Whatever Federal aid we could get would be only a drop in the bucket compared to what we are doing ourselves." There are other distinguished governors who oppose Federal aid to schools, too. Governor Harold Handley of Indiana, said in his 1956 inaugural address: "The citizen of Indiana demands that education must be under local administration. He (the citizen) will not tolerate nationalization of his schools." Governor Price Daniel of Texas on February 1, 1957, wrote the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., as follows: "I am pleased to advise you that I join with Governors Stratton and Handley on their stand against Federal aid to education." We hold that Federal aid to schools should be defeated-in fact, it should never be considered-because it is unconstitutional. Public education is a matter that should be controlled by the States and localities and not by the Central Government. This is clearly defined in the 10th amendment to the Constitution: "Powers reserved to States. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nothing could be more understandable than the 10th amendment. It prohibits Congress from interfering in the business of the States, and this certainly would include the public schools. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given permission to tax and spend for the Nation's schools. Finally, we believe that the proposal for Federal aid to schools-for any purpose, including scholarships-is one of the greatest threats to our free society in the history of the Nation. We believe that our constitutional form of government is endangered by the continuing advance of Federal powers and the usurpation of State and local responsibilities. We believe that if Federal aid to education is enacted, it eventually will achieve the breakdown of constitutional government, remove educational responsibility from parents-where it belongs-and make collectivized captives of our children. Consider the potential for evil of an "Alger Hiss" as Federal school administrator. Preserve local autonomy of our schools. We sincerely hope this committee and the Congress will reject Federal aid to education in any form. Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. ST. PAUL, MINN., December 17, 1957. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: Enclosed is a statement of policy regarding the nationwide testing of students. This statement has been endorsed by 20 directors of statewide testing programs who strongly feel that any testing program and particularly one related to Federal or State scholarship programs, must be formulated with these principles well in mind. During recent months increasing attention has been given to the possible use of psychological tests to aid this country to make more effective use of its manpower. At present it appears likely that Government support will be provided in some way or other to nationwide or other testing programs, perhaps in conjunction with a scholarship program. Effective use of our manpower can be facilitated through the means of wide testing based upon sound principles, and the contribution such testing can make in conjunction with other educational and psychological programs is great. Unless such testing is based upon sound principles, it could do much harm to thousands of individuals and perhaps to our very social structure. Persons administering large scale psychological and edcational testing programs in many of our States have had much experience with and acquired a great deal of information about problems related to the use of tests for identifying persons with unusual or exceptional talent. Many of these persons fear that the present concern and anxiety about the adequacy of American education, particularly in the field of science and technology, might lead to precipitous and ill-considered actions on the national level. These persons, who have been responsible for the administration of many tests to millions of young persons, are well aware that a testing program improperly conceived and administered can have very undesirable effects, whereas one based upon sound principles and properly administered can be of much value. Many persons are well aware of the issue involved, as evidenced by statements made in speeches and appearing in newspapers. But statements made by some |