Page images

We believe this amendment is necessary for the best welfare of education in the future. We accept and support all the other parts of S. 2, provided the suggested protections against Federal control of education and for continued State and local autonomy in education are included.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall end my formal statement at this point with an expression of great appreciation for the privilege of appearing here.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Fuller, after your speech at Atlantic City, the Commissioner of Education was asked his opinion about the matter, and the New York Times quotes him as having said the following:

A point of particular pride is that the center of administration and speaking now of the National Defense Education Act of 1958is at the State and local levels. We feel that the act has been administered in complete recognition of our tradition of State and local control of education.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

We have had Federal aid without Federal control in this program (vocational education) for 40 years. In this new act we have a special responsibility to demonstrate that in this broader scale we can have Federal aid without Federal control.

Now, do you agree with those statements by the U.S. Commissioner of Education?

Dr. FULLER. I agree with all but one. Senator YARBOROUGH. Which one do you disagree with? Dr. FULLER. That we have had 40 years of vocational education without Federal control. I happen to have administered that program at the local level and as a State commissioner of education. I was a member of the General National Policy Group on Vocational Education, 1947–48, and have been in close touch with it, of course, representing the State officers since 1948. And I think that there are still aspects of the administration of that act that cannot be called

anything else.

I believe, though, that the progress toward eliminating the undesirable Federal controls was rather rapid in the 1947–48 conferences, which lasted off and on for a full year. We removed 13 administrative controls from the Smith-Hughes-George-Deen laws. And year before last, in the revision of the basic policies on vocational education, still more were removed.

A point that is very difficult to make many people accept, even on the basis of proof, is this: that as these laws settle down, and as the weight of the opinion of local and State educators is brought to bear, the Federal controls tend to grow less rather than greater. That applies to the school lunch program, I might add.

The school lunch program at first—when it came from a relief program to a permanent program on July 1, 1946—had a very great deal of control in it. It still has more than we would like. But at that time, it was operated federally right to the local school. Then, in 1946, it was put in the State education agencies for administration, in nearly half the States for both public and nonpublic schools and in all of the States for the public schools. Today, about 22 of the States do their own auditing. And the policy of the Department of Agriculture for a number of years now has been to encourage the


States to assume this responsibility to audit local districts in regard to the school lunch program.

So I can see great progress in eliminating the Federal controls as the law gets into practice and settles down.

I agree with Commissioner Derthick that insofar as that law would permit, what he said is true; but under Public Law 864, with all its special aids and its special regulations which are necessary to keep the aids special, it would be impossible for a corps of administrators from on high to administer that without Federal controls. It cannot be done, because the law does not allow it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Fuller, do you recommend that we repeal the National Defense Education Act of 1958? After all, we are hearing these bills this year. This was not called as a hearing on whether we repeal that one. From your attack on it, I judge that you are greatly dissatisfied with that law.

Dr. FULLER. I would recommend that as a long term policy for American education it be allowed to lapse at the end of its term4 years.

I read in the testimony approving the AASA resolution that until the time comes when the massive infusion of funds that we favor without Federal control has been made, and the funds have been appropriated, we simply, as a mater of survival, have to hang on to the funds we have.

I am in favor of increasing the appropriations under 864 and making it work.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I do not want to cut you off, but we have some more witnesses. I will try to keep my questions to reasonable length and would hope you could answer on that subject in a reasonable length of time, too.

I assume, then, from your answer, that when that 4 year time has expired, you are opposed to the renewal of the National Defense Education Act.

Dr. FULLER. Provided we have by that time a massive infusion, without Federal control, of Federal support funds.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And then you would oppose the renewal of it at this time?

Dr. FULLER. Not unless we have the general bills without Federal control enacted into law.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It has often been stated by some people that they fear Federal-aid to education, because the experience has been that the longer the Federal Government appropriates money to aid a project, the more Federal controls we have. Your experience with the school laws, the Federal-aid for schools, is that that is not true. I take it from what you said that the longer aid has been extended, the lesser the Federal control becomes, or the lesser the Federal interference becomes.

Dr. FULLER. I do not know of any exception to that rule; and I have been representing the States and have dealt with all of the federally connected educational programs, over a long period of years now.

And I say there is less the longer it goes. Senator YARBOROUGH. Your experience has been that actually in administering these Federal-aid laws, the longer the laws are administered the less the Federal control becomes ?


Dr. FULLER. That is right. And the foot-in-the-door theory that some people who believe otherwise have is simply not true in fact.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Now, are you, or against S. 2?
Dr. FULLER. We are for S. 2, provided it has this amendment in it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are you against it if it does not have the amendment in it?

Dr. FULLER. If it does not have it in it, our policy, voted unanimously at Atlantic City and approved by other State school officers, is that we will revert to our policy adopted at Chicago; that is, that we would neither oppose nor support S. 2.

Senator YARBOROUGH. But if this section 7, this amendment that you propose, is written in it, you are for it?

Dr. FULLER. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You make the whole question of support and nonsupport of the bill virtually revolve on those words "verify" or “certify"?

Dr. FULLER. That is the attitude that the State school officers take.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What is your position on the administration bill, S. 1016? Are you for or against that?

Dr. FULLER. You know, it is a pretty long bill, Senator, and I have not had time to study that bill very much. We had a meeting down at Atlantic City on Federal support of education, and it was not even mentioned. The chief State school officers have not adopted any policy in regard to it, and therefore I cannot in any sense speak for the the council in regard to it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. They have not had a chance to study it?

Dr. FULLER. They have not had a chance to study it. And all I have are rather superficial impressions about it.

Senator CLARK. I wonder if I would be putting words in your mouth if I suggested that the reason it was not even mentioned in Atlantic City is because everybody knew it was completely ineffective?

Dr. FULLER. Well, I do not know, Senator. There is a pretty expressive adjective in that statement, and if you would take it out, and qualify it just a little bit, I would welcome having the words in my mouth.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Dr. Fuller.
Dr. FULLER. Thank you very much.

(The following letter and telegram were subsequently submitted for the record :)


Washingon, D.C., February 26, 1959. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: This is to ask you to enter in the record of the hearings of your subcommittee for February 20, 1959, the enclosed telegram from the State superintendent of public instruction of New Mexico, Tom Wiley. It would also be a favor to me if you would have the record show that Superintendent Charles H. Boehm of Pennsylvania, who testified on the same day, has authorized me to inform you that he is also in favor of the amendment proposed in the testimony given on behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers by me on that day.

We were sorry you were unable to attend, and appreciated the cordial recep tion we received by the members of your subcommittee. With warmest regards, I am, Sincerely yours,

EDGAR FULLER, Executive Secretary.

SANTA FE, N. Mex., February 25, 1959. Dr. EDGAR FULLER, Washington, D.C.:

Heartily endorse amendment which you proposed to Murray-Metcalf bill that would cause Federal funds to lose their identify and become a part of State funds for education with no Federal auditing below the State educational agency level.


State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Charles H. Boehm, State superintendent of public instruction of the State of Pennsylvania.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show, if you do not mind, that Dr. Boehm has really made an outstanding record since he has taken over the job of State superintendent of public instruction in Harrisburg. The progress which has been made under his leadership in the public school system has been noteworthy. He is a gentleman of wide experience and background in his subject. I am very happy that he has come here before us, and I hope very much that all the members of the subcommittee will read his testimony, even though conflicting engagements made it impossible for them to be here.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Clark.
We are happy to hear from so distinguished an authority on this.




Dr. BOEHM. Senator, I would like to have permission to file the report and read portions of it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That request will be granted,

Dr. BOEHM. First, my name is Charles Boehm. I am superintendent of public instruction of the State of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the cold war of the classrooms” has placed a responsibility upon educational leadership never before visioned. Unusual political and educational statesmanship will be required in the improvement of education at all levels across this country as we wind our way in an era of a nuclear stalemate. Not all of our problems are financial, or dependent upon new revenue, but many basic problems have their origin in lack of financial support. An antiquated, inequitable real estate tax base, cumbersome constitutional limitations, mobility of our population, sharply rising costs, mounting school enrollments, obsolescent school structures, interstate competition for industries, intrastate competition for State funds, all woefully combine to give public education an uneven, inadequate support both within the States and among the States.

To aggravate the problem even further, within the past few months the Nation has become even more conscious of existing fire hazards as a result of the disastrous school fire in Chicago. This situation followed closely by college dormitory fires prompted Americans to exert an all-out effort to prevent recurrences of such tragedies. Then, too, fire has not been the only scourge to strike recently. Unusual floods, not only in Pennsylvania, but in a number of other States, have resulted in severe property damage to school buildings.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The recent series of events has ignited a "chain reaction” which will of necessity compel the Nation to speed up school building programs by at least 5 to 10 years.

Since we are very familiar with the situation in Pennsylvania, we would like to use this State as an example of the many States which have made a real effort at both the State and local levels to meet school building and teacher needs. It is impossible to maintain schools at the level to which every American child is entitled. There is no longer any doubt in our minds about the necessity for Federal aid to education, but rather at the present time we agree with the Rockefeller report which states that “it is important to determine the direction of Federal aid."

Our 1.9 million public school pupils are exposed to as great a disparity of educational opportunities between the better schools and the poor schools as probably exists in the Nation. In Pennsylvania the population is not only growing but shifting away from agricultural areas and such regions as those where coal mining formerly attracted a concentrated population. The peopl

. The people are moving into the counties where industry is expanding. To represent this point concretely let us consider two extremes which actually exist in Pennsylvania. Bucks County had an increase of 355 percent in the number of births in 1956 as compared with the number in 1940; while Forest County reported a 36 percent decrease in the number of births over the same period.

Senator CLARK. Dr. Boehm, could I interrupt for a moment to ask you if you could

give another kind of an example of the great variety in our State? Let us take for example the comparative wealth of the school district which encompasses Lower Marion Township with the wealth of the school districts in Luzerne County, where this flood has put an additional 3,000 miners out of work. Is there not an enormous differential there?

Doctor BOEHM. The differential as represented by the real estate tas base alone is several hundred percentage points in the differences. To illustrate, the assessed valuation per public school pupil in Luzerne County is approximately $4,676, while the corresponding figure for Lower Marion Township is $16.226. We have rather wealthy districts adjoining some of our metropolitan areas. To illustrate it more concretely, while it is true that the population for Pennsylvania as a whole and for most of its counties has increased, nevertheless since 1940, 27 of the 67 counties in the State have shown decreases in population. Decreases, of course, are not only associated with wealth but also with other problems.

Also, there is the tendency for suburban living which lessens the pressure on the city schools to aggravate the problem in the suburbs. Naturally, such movement within a State is not unique to Pennsylvania alone. Therefore, the Nation as a whole can no longer afford the attitude of indifference toward the needs of school pupils wherever they may be.

All evidence on hand at the present time indicates that the cost of education will continue to rise. The rapidly increasing enrollments, the expansion of school services, and the need for school construction due to an accumulated deficit of needed buildings, as well as the inflationary trends are positive factors in such an increase.

« PreviousContinue »