FEDERAL GRANTS TO STATES FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 15 a.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph W. Yarborough presiding. Present: Senator Yarborough (presiding). Also present: Senator Clark, member of the committee. Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; William G. Reidy, Frederick R. Blackwell, and Raymond Hurley, professional staff members. Senator YARBOROUGH. The subcommittee on education will come to order. The hearings will continue on S. 2, a bill to provide for national assistance for the support of public schools by appropriating funds to the States to be used for constructing school facilities and for teachers' salaries. The first witness listed for today is Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers. This testimony will be taken also on S. 8, S. 631, S. 816, S. 863, S. 877, and S. 1016. STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Dr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edgar Fuller. I am executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers. The council's members are the superintendents and commissioners of education in the States, Territories, island possessions and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They would have heavy administrative responsibilities under any of the bills being considered here today, which I understand, Mr. Chairman, include S. 2, by Senator Murray, S. 8 by Senator McNamara, S. 631, introduced by Senator Wiley at the request of the Council of Chief State School Officers, S. 816 by Senator Proxmire, S. 863 by Senator Javits, the administration's bill of 1957 by Senator Case, and the administration's bill of 1959 by Senator Aiken and Prouty. The chief State school officers have had definite policies concerning Federal support of education for many years. More than a decade ago, in the basic policy bulletin entitled "Our System of Education," they adopted unanimously the following statements which remain in effect today: Federal funds for current expenses, capital outlay, or other costs of education should be apportioned to the State education authorities by the U.S. Office of Education and not directly to local administrative units; the State education authority should apportion such funds to local administrative units in conformity with the basic plan for financing education in the State. Another vital policy statement from the same source concerns discretionary controls by the Federal Government over Federal funds apportioned to the States for public elementary and secondary schools. It reads as follows: Funds collected at one level of government for expenditure at a different level should be apportioned in accord with an equitable and objective formula free from discretionary control by the apportioning agency. Then, after the funds have been apportioned and expended by the local educational gaencies, comes the process of accounting. Here again the chief State school officers have a basic policy in their general policy bulletin: Federal audits of Federal funds made available to the States for education should be restricted to the auditing of the records of the respective State education agencies. The administration of public education at the local level throughout the United States is largely in the hands of the city, town, village and other superintendents of schools organized as the American Association of School Administrators. Earlier this week, this great organization of thousands of administrators of public education at the local level adopted the following statement: Realizing that, under present tax structures, resources for local school purposes are woefully inadequate for quality school programs in many areas, and observing that recent events make it more clearly apparent that public education is essential to national strength, security and welfare, the American Association of School Administrators reiterates its belief that substantial financial resources available to the Federal Government should be made available for the support of public schools. Unprecedented increased enrollments and the need for additional staffs and new physical plants make it urgent that greatly increased funds be made available for education in the immediate future. The association therefore urges that State legislatures and the Congress of the United States at once make major appropriations to strengthen the general programs and facilities in the public tax-supported schools and colleges. Until such time as these appropriations are forthcoming, the American Association of School Administrators strongly urges the Congress to provide the necessary appropriations needed for the continuance of existing federally supported programs in education. In addition to the foregoing resolution, the AASA this week stated in its platform that it would work for the following: Federal aid for operating and providing facilities for publicly supported and controlled schools, administered without Federal control, through the U.S. Office of Education and State departments of education. Mr. Chairman, the Council of Chief State School Officers is in complete agreement with the American Association of School Administrators on these fundamental issues that are so greatly concerned in the legislative proposals before your committee. Most of the other great national professional organizations concerned with public elementary and secondary education are also in accord with these principles. The Council of Chief State School Officers held its annual meeting in Chicago last November, and passed by unanimous vote the following resolutions, among others: That the council go on record as favoring Federal support legislation of the general type which leaves to the States complete freedom to determine the educational purposes for which Federal funds should be used. The resolutions committee reported this resolution, and the second was reported by the legislative committee. Each has equal authority as the official position of the council. The following legislative policy of the council for the period of the 86th Congress was recommended: (a) Concentration on full implementation of Public Law 864. (b) That the council go on record as favoring the principles embodied in the Udall bill as a long-range program and that the council take no position on the Murray-Metcalf bill. Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Senator YARBOROUGH. Surely. Senator CLARK. Mr. Fuller, I was not quite clear as to the interposition you made between the two quotes there. Would you mind restating that? I gather it was a different body that adopted the second paragraph from the one that adopted the first. Dr. FULLER. Yes, I would be glad, Senator Clark, to make that clear. The council had two committees meeting simultaneously. One was the committee on resolutions. One was the committee on legislation. The resolutions committee reported, among other things, the first quotation of the two just quoted. And I can give you the full detail on the other things, which are not in conflict with what is quoted here. Senator CLARK. No, I am not interested in that. Dr. FULLER. The resolutions committee reported the first paragraph. The legislative committee reported the second paragraph. They were adopted within 10 minutes of each other by more than 30 State school officers by unanimous vote, and the point that I was making is that they have equal authority as the official policy of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Senator CLARK. But as I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, the Murray-Metcalf bill referred to in your quote there is not identical with S. 2. Dr. FULLER. My next sentence goes into that, sir. Senator CLARK. But it is not, is it? Dr. FULLER. That is what I would say in the next sentence. Senator CLARK. And at your meeting in Atlantic City-was it earlier this week or last week? Dr. FULLER. This week. Senator CLARK (continuing). The present Murray-Metcalf bill was not brought before the council for either discussion or action, was it? Dr. FULLER. It was discussed in relation to other things and is well known to all the members who were there. Senator CLARK. But you took no action on the present version of S. 2, did you? Dr. FULLER. No. Senator CLARK. Thank you. Dr. FULLER. The Udall bill referred to contained the principles that are expressed in S. 631, and the Murray-Metcalf bill mentioned in the resolution was that of 1958, last year's Murray-Metcalf bill. In the discussion it was made clear that the full intent of both of the resolutions, from the resolutions committee and the legislative committee, respectively, as referred to above, was the same. And I think I should interpolate here, Senator Clark, that following the adoption of the two resolutions, there was discussion in which it was pointed out that the action that had been taken was not in support of the 1958 Murray-Metcalf bill. There was no motion to reconsider and no objection raised to the unanimous action which had been taken. Senator CLARK. But the fact of the matter is that you did not consider the present version of the Murray-Metcalf bill at your conference this week. Dr. FULLER. That I have attempted to make clear-that we did not. I also, I think, should interpolate at this point to say that the 1958 version of the Udall bill, as introduced last year as an amendment to the Murray-Metcalf bill of 1958-at least, as it was considered in testimony is not precisely the same as the Udall bill of this year, but the intentions and the policies underlying both bills are the same. Senator CLARK. But you did not consider the Udall bill of this year, either, did you, at the meeting earlier this week? Dr. FULLER. Only the principles. And only the principles are referred to in the resolution. And those principles are referred to in the resolution. And those principles have been unanimously adopted from time to time since 1948 by the council. And during the past week or 10 days, I have talked with approximately one-half of all the chief State school officers. Senator CLARK. Yes. As you know, we have two of them here to testify when you are finished this morning. Dr. FULLER. Sir? Senator CLARK. I say two of them will follow you in testimony this morning. Dr. FULLER. Yes; I realize that, and I am glad to have them here. I think that their testimony will be very helpful to the committee. The 1959 Murray-Metcalf bill, S. 2, has been improved in a number of ways in comparison with the 1958 version. Since this formal statement was prepared after 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, I had very little time to do it, and I would appreciate the privilege of interpolating here just a little for the record and for the information of the Senators present. The legislation favored by the council encompassed in the UdallWiley bills has also been clarified this year, but the principles of administration sought remain the same as they have been last year and for years previous. We find a number of principles favored by the council in the bill before your committee, Mr. Chairman, which has been receiving the most attention. This is the Murray-Metcalf bill, S. 2, and it is impossible for the council to support that bill in most of its aspects, provided that certain amendments are added to it which are believed by the chief State school officers to be of great importance for the future of education in this country. And I would like to emphasize that statement. It is possible for the council to support S. 2 in most of its aspects, provided that certain amendments are added to it which are believed by the chief State school officers to be of great importance to the future of education in this country. I might say that those amendments do eliminate all of the aspects which could not be supported by the council. Members of the board of directors and other chief State school officers held a meeting on these matters last Monday and decided to bring S. 2 and S. 631 more closely together, if possible. To that end, we have held discussions with leading representatives of education associations supporting other legislation. We have reason to believe there will be united educational support for the amendments we are about to suggest here to the Murray-Metcalf bill. Provided these amendments are included, the Council of Chief State School Officers will favor enactment of S. 2. I might say that this has been checked with as many State School officers as could be reached and has the unanimous support of all of the general officers and all the members of the board of directors of the council. Senator CLARK. But as I understand it, Dr. Fuller, this amendment which you were about to propose was not called to the attention of the council at its meeting in Atlantic City? Is that correct? Formally? Dr. FULLER. It was officially adopted by the council in Atlantic City. Senator CLARK. This suggested amendment? Dr. FULLER. Yes, sir. Senator CLARK. Thank you. Dr. FULLER. And it has been approved by at least 20 chief State officers informally, including the president, the first vice president, the second vice president, the six members of the board of directors, and other leading members of the council who have been members for many years. Senator CLARK. I am not clear. Why do you have to have this informal action if you took formal action in Atlantic City? Did you take formal action at Atlantic City? Dr. FULLER. We took formal action at Atlantic City insofar as those who were present are concerned; but, Senator Clark, there are only 54 chief State school officers, and it is our practice to deal with the whole group, or as many of the group as possible. When such a thing as this arises, without adequate time to deal with the whole group, we ask the officers and directors. We had no meeting of our own down there except insofar as those who came to the AASA Convention were concerned. We had a luncheon, it is true, and we called a board of directors meeting, but we had only four of the nine directors there, because the first vice president had his own legislative hearings on his own budget, and the president, unfortunately, had slipped on a step and fell and broke his leg the week before and was unable to be there. Senator CLARK. Please understand, Dr. Fuller, I am not being critical; I think you are doing a wonderful job. I just wanted to get the basic facts. The thing that I think this committee would be interested to know is who is suggesting an amendment to section 7? Is this just an in |