« PreviousContinue »
Senator YARBOROUGH. I take it from your testimony that you do not make your support of S. 2 contingent upon whether an amendment is adopted providing that the State officials shall certify and not verify.
Mr. BAILEY. No; I do not. But I think I have added, Senator, that I thought if the committee in its wisdom saw fit to do it, it might be helpful.
Senator Y ARBOROUGH. Has the actual administration of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 in Florida in your opinion tended to cause the Federal control of the school system in Florida?
Mr. BAILEY. Senator, I am sorry to say I have not had any money to administer yet, so I do not know. I want to add that I think we are one of the first States to have all titles approved. We are ready to go on it as soon as we can get some money. And I do not think I have had enough experience with it yet to make a statement here about whether or not there is a tremendous amount of Federal control. I think in this whole business of purchase of equipment, as Dr. Fuller said, there may be some indication that there is going to be a great deal more accounting control over that than I ever anticipated.
Senator YARBOROUGH. That is an accounting control?
Mr. Bailey. That is right. I think that is where it is going to be: I do not think it is coming from anywhere else.
Senator YARBOROUGH. You do not think they are going to try to tell you how to run the schools?
Mr. BAILEY. No, I do not think that; but I think if we are going to have to at the State level approve every piece of equipment that is bought anywhere in the State by a local unit of schools, it is going to take quite a massive group of people in the first place, more than I had ever anticipated. And I still hope we will not have to do all that. I want to hasten to add that.
Senator YARBOROUGII. That is all of the questions. Thank you very much.
We have here a communication from Senator Dennis Chavez, of New Mexico, forwarding a statement from Mr. Tom Wiley, State School Superintendent of New Mexico, who was unable to be present.. This statement will be printed in the record. To: Senator Murray, chairman, Subcommittee on Education. From: Tom Wiley, State school superintendent, Santa Fe, N. Mex. Subject: Federal grants for education.
It is my opinion that we are badly in need of Federal aid for education.
The National Defense Education Act is not the full answer by any means.. Neither are the combined benefits of Public Law 815 and 874 sufficient to meet the needs.
Almost one-half of New Mexico lands are owned by or in possession of the Federal Government. Moreover, the State has one of the highest schoolage populations percentagewise of any State in the Union.
These factors make for a condition which is serious, insofar as financing is: concerned.
During New Mexico's Territorial days practically nothing was done in the field of public education. Schoolhouses in many of the older communities are inadequate and uncomfortable. Many schools still have outdoor toilets and water is carried to the classrooms in buckets. A careful estimate reveals that it would cost over $3 million to replace unsanitary buildings in one county.
While the school buildings in the larger cities are well built, it can be a matterof only a short time until many of them will be on split sessions. Most classrooms in the cities are overcrowded now. Many of those young people who would teach are enticed away by better paying jobs with less responsibility and less criticism.
Unless the Federal Government takes the matter of support of education, support without control from the national level-seriously, the whole system is in danger of bogging down.
In New Mexico the school population will increase at the rate of about 7 percent per year. Costs are going up at the rate of approximately 10 percent a year. Yet the anticipated revenues do not indicate more than a 4 or 5 percent increase for the next few years. This means one of two alternatives : education must be curtailed and may bog down at a crucial time in our history, or the Federal vernment will lend its financial support in a substantial way.
The Murray-Metcalf bills meet the challenge. The amount of money proposed will supplement funds already available in sufficient quantity to get the job done.
The Udall bill also proposes general assistance for education. The Udall bill appears to have slightly less directive relative to specific use by the States; however, the Murray-Metcalf bill does not set forth directives to the extent of being detrimental in its application at the State level and it would be of tremendous assistance.
There is no reason for me to attempt to argue the points of merit found in the Murray-Metcalf versus the Udall bills. The major objective is to gain financial assistance without Federal control, in a sufficient amount to support the educational burden of the States.
Senator YARBOROUGH. We have a communication from Senator Clinton B. Anderson of New Mexico, also transmitting the statement from Tom Wiley on the bill. And without taking the time to read this statement, we will just state the essence of it is that we are badly in need of Federal aid to education and that the State superintendent there is in favor of the Murray-Metcalf bill and supports it and says it meets the challenge.
Senator YARBOROUGH. The subcommittee stands adjourned until Thursday, February 26, at 2:30 p.m., at which time the hearings will be resumed in this room.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 a.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene 2:30 p.m., Feb. 26, 1959.)
FEDERAL GRANTS TO STATES FOR ELEMENTARY AND
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1959
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:50 p.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph W. Yarborough presiding.
Present: Senator Yarborough (presiding). Committee staff members present : Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; William G. Reidy, Frederick R. Blackwell, and Raymond Hurley, professional staff members.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Gentlemen, the subcommittee will come to order.
While some of the other members who wanted to hear this testimony are not present, I know that some of you who are here to testify have other appearances this afternoon, and we will open the hearing
I regret that I am late, but I was at an official dinner tendered by the Senate to the official representatives of the nation of Cambodia, and that unavoidably detained me.
Commissioner Derthick, I believe that you are the first witness. You have other commitments later in the afternoon. When the testimony was first opened with Secretary Flemming, you were here, and on that occasion, February 17, I do not believe that you had an opportunity to read your prepared statement at that time; is that correct? But it was incorporated into the transcript of the hearing (see p. 201). The request has been made that we hear the statement now. I would like to suggest, Commissioner Derthick, that if you have time I before you are required to appear before the other committee, you read it, and if this time schedule does not allow you to read it for the benefit of us here, that you give us a summary of what was incorporated in the record. We have conflicts, too. Numbers of us do not have an opportunity to attend meetings we would like to attend. I hope other Senators will be here before you finish.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE G. DERTHICK, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF
EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Mr. DERTHICK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I might explain that Secretary Flemming will be here shortly. He was detained in a dedicatory ceremony over at the Capitol.
It is true that I was a chief witness in an appropriation hearing and came over to keep this engagement, and the chairman did ask me to seek permission to leave as soon as you were through with me so that I could return to those duties. But Secretary Flemming will be here by that time, and he and other members of his staff will be in a position to answer questions.
Also, Mr. Chairman, my testimony has been inserted in the record, and I think in a very few minutes I can read certain high points for emphasis, if I may do that. .
Senator YARBOROUGH. All right.
Mr. DERTHICK. In delivering those high points, I should like to say that a modern education program cannot be conducted without suitable plant and facilities. The school plant serves as a protective shelter and as an educational tool. The planning of educational housing should share with business and industrial facilities the fruits of dramatic progress in acoustical and visual engineering and functional design. In short, the plant and facilities should provide proper conditions for learning.
I should like, also, to emphasize that current school construction lags behind national needs. There are several reasons for this current lagging. School plant construction in the middle and late twenties was, if measured in 1958 dollars, an enormous undertaking, comparing favorably with the programs of the early 1950's. However, the depression came along, and school construction dropped to a new low level. Then the onset of the Second World War made it difficult to obtain materials and labor for new construction, and construction dropped to about one-tenth of the level of 1924 and 1925.
Meanwhile, in the latter part of the 1950 decade, school enrollments increased materially as a result of the increasing birth rate. Hence, the schools entered the decade of 1950-60 with a substantial backlog of need, which has not yet been eradicated. The advent of hostilities in Korea brought about a lag which further aggravated this backlog.
Now, I shall just summarize some factors that emphasize the current school plant needs.
We not only have enrollment increases, but we have the reorganization of school districts as one of those important factors that call for additional school plant construction at new centers, when new centers are established. The changing school curriculum, more offerings in physical education, demands for creative work, demands for science and language laboratories, new and larger shops, and so forth, put pressures on school plant needs.
Changes in instruction methods likewise call for different kinds of facilities. Pupil mobility is another factor which creates new needs in school plant facilities. Sometimes as these children are moved by the tens of thousands, space is left in the places from which they came, and there are inadequate facilities in the new locations to which they
Patterns of school organization also affect school plant construction needs. The junior high school and the junior college programs, the kindergarten and nursery schools and evening classes, all bring pressures on this problem.
Then there is the community use of facilities that we have seen come into the forefront in recent years, and also the new educational media, bringing demands for school plant changes and additions.
I should like to emphasize in some detail the information we have about the total number of classrooms needed. The current data in the Office of Education indicates that a total of between 415,000 and 430,000 classrooms will be needed to provide spaces for increased enrollment, for elimination of backlog, and for current replacement during the 5-year period 1959-60 through 1963–64.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Derthick, may I interrupt you for just a moment there?
Mr. DERTHICK. Yes, sir.
Senator YARBOROUGH. We often see figures cited of the current needs for classrooms of 130,000 or 148,000, or 140,000, in that bracket. You are projecting this figure you have of 133,500 over the coming 5 years? Mr. DERTHICK. Yes, sir. Senator YARBOROUGH. You include in that the 135,000 to 140,000?
Mr. DERTHICK. We do. The backlog figure and the figure called for by increased enrollments, and then the need to take care of replacements.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Those that are needed right now, currently, are what-135,000 to 140,000?
Mr. DERTHICK. Yes. I call attention to that, 140,500.
Mr. DERTHICK. Yes; in the autumn of 1958. And it is estimated at not less than 133,500 in the fall of 1959. Current replacement need is estimated at 16,800 per year, on the basis of experience of 1957–58 and 1958–59, or a total of 84,000 for the 5-year period.
We have just published a circular that gives much of this information in detail, and we should make available to all members of the committee a copy of this circular.
Now, I want to call attention, Mr. Chairman, to the relative ability of the States and local districts to construct needed classrooms. These districts and States have made impressive efforts, and that same is true for the local school districts, to meet their construction needs for elementary and secondary schools. This is exemplified by the fact that construction during the last few years has averaged 70,000 classrooms per year. The number reported as completed in 1957–58 was 71,600; the number scheduled for completion in 1958–59 is 78,440.
The continuation of construction at this rate would, if properly distributed among the States and among the school districts within the States, contribute substantially to eventual fulfillment of classroom requirements in the public schools. However, studies made by the Office of Education indicate that a wide variation in the rate of progress prevails among the several States.
We have come to the conclusion that if the current rate of school construction is to be maintained, those States and school districts which are lagging in providing necessary construction must be stimulated and aided in finding a way to meet their needs.
For example, one State reports a total need of 11,936 classrooms in the fall of 1958, but indicates that only 963 classrooms are scheduled for completion by the end of the school year 1958–59, with consequent availability for use at the beginning of the school year 1959–60. Another State, more economically favored, reports a shortage of 11,117