work suffers every time they take these additional jobs, because teaching is a fulltime job. I know from many years' experience how true that statement is.

Let us look at the attitude of the American people. Do they want the Federal Government to assume this responsibility?

Surely the Members of Congress have had sufficient evidence to know that the people want the Federal Government to assume its share of the cost of public education.

As you know, there have been a whole series of public opinion polls, and all of them have shown that the majority of Americans want the Federal Government to participate in the support of education.

The recent Gallup poll, when broken down into political parties, showed that the majority of the Republicans, the majority of the Democrats, and the majority of the Independents wanted the Federal Government to assume its part of the cost of education. The majority of easterners want it, the Midwest wants it, the South and the West want it. Even the church groups have been polled, and the majority of the Protestants and the majority of the Catholics favor the Federal Government helping pay for public education.

When the people were broken into occupational groups, a similar story was told. Our own AAUW poll of our membership shows that there has been an increasing number favoring Federal aid to education since the previous poll.

Whereas approximately 70 percent of the Nation as a whole is for it, 81 percent of the members of the American Association of University Women who participated in the poll think that the Federal Government should share in the cost of public education. I might say there was an additional 8.7 percent who were not opposed to it, but wanted our statement redrafted. So it was probably close to 90 percent rather than 81 that were for it in general.

I might add that AAUW as a group represents the most highly trained women in the United States, and a group who stand to share in the increased cost of any education program since their average income is $5,000-plus. Moreover, the majority or two-thirds of our members are lay citizens with only one-third being professional women like myself.

While our members welcome studies, we would consider it regretable if a study such as the one called for by the President should mean postponement of action by this Congress. All studies of educational needs in the past few years, including the recent White House Conference on Education, have revealed the need for the Federal Government to assume its fair share of the responsibility for financing education. Furthermore, all studies have shown that America is underinvesting in the education of her children and, by so doing, is not only retarding their development but retarding her own social and economic growth and limiting her potential defense at one of the most critical times in her history. And you know this has been going on since 1920. I do not have to tell you that.

Since a nation moves forward or backward on the feet of her children, America cannot longer delay taking steps to insure that all children and youth have an opportunity for fulfilling their potentialities and thereby being able to make a greater contribution to our democratic way of life in this country and abroad.

STATE VERSUS FEDERAL CONTROL

Fear of Federal control is the reason usually given for inaction. At least once a week one of our local newspapers carries an editorial on States rights, which usually includes criticism of Federal aid to education and assures the reader that Federal aid will mean Federal control. Yet, anyone who takes the trouble to study Federal aid to education knows that as early as the 18th century we have had Federal financial support to colleges, programs of vocational education, school construction, school lunches, research grants, and for counseling and guidance. Yet none of these grants has led to Federal control or intervention. In other words, our experience through several decades shows that there can be Federal aid without Federal control. Furthermore, most of the bills have been drafted to insure State and local supervision and administration of policies, personnel, curriculum, and the program of instruction.

I have yet to find a State or local superintendent who said that the Federal Government had controlled his use of Federal funds in any way that was not specified in the bill under which the grant was received. I sat by a man last night who had been the superintendent of the Clarksville schools for 40 years. I asked him the same question. He said he never experienced any control other than what was in the bill.

We always know what is written in there, and we can write into the bill all the preventatives of control that we want to write.

In fact, it is conceivable that Federal financial support would increase rather than decrease State and local control. For example, adequate funds would make it possible for a State to set up standards for the type of teachers they would employ instead of having to take any type that is available for the salary they have to offer.

One of the Kentucky counties next to Tennessee has one-half of their teachers substandard teachers. That is always true in the rural sections. The rural children in all parts of these United States are suffering more than the urban sections.

You will recall that the President pointed out that the pay of teachers in this country in some instances is shameful and that school facilities in some areas are meager. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Arthur S. Flemming, has called attention to the need to find out what financial "fair share" each level of government should pay for education and welfare services. Although such a study needs to be made, anyone knows that it should be more than the paltry 4 percent the Federal Government is now paying. And it is not necessary to wait for another study if the Federal Government is willing to assume any part of its fair share of the total cost of education.

As early as the 1920's studies have shown how unfortunate children are to be born in certain sections of the United States and in the rural sections of any State. With the boom of babies which has continued throughout the period since World War II efforts have been made in practically every Congress to obtain Federal aid for the fast-growing costs of public education. But to date powerful opponents have succeeded in preventing the enactment of such legislation, despite the fact that public support was widespread.

May I close my testimony for the American Association of University Women with a quotation from a National Action Committee on Education which was appointed by President Eisenhower and which was drafted and approved by this highly respected group of citizens:

If for a period of years each succeeding generation is drawn in disproportionately large numbers from those areas in which economic conditions are poorest, the effect on American civilization and on representative political institutions may be disastrous.

The above statement was transmitted to Congress in 1958. May the 86th Congress have the courage and the wisdom to pass legislation which will prevent such a disaster.

Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Javits, do you have any questions? Senator JAVITS. I would like to compliment Dr. Southall and her organization on two significant points.

I am sorry I was not here earlier to hear all the testimony, and I have to leave at once for another committee meeting. That is our problem here. We have three going on at the same time.

But the two points are, first, the question of Federal control and using that as a reason for vetoing Federal aid, and, second, the matter of teachers' salaries. I think those are the two most significant problems with which we are dealing here in Congress.

I would like to say that I agree with Dr. Southall, with you and your organization, that if we make Federal control an objection to doing anything about Federal aid to education, then we are demonstrating such a complete lack of confidence in our own ability to control the American system as to extend not only to education but to housing, to defense, civil rights, to any phase of the Federal establishment. We do not hesitate to spend right now something like $3 billion a year for aid to research, and we are not afraid of Federal control there because we need it for defense preparations, but we are afraid to spend maybe one-third of that for education, for Federal aid to the most important resource that our country has, its young people. I am not afraid, and many of my colleagues are not, but so many that testify here seem to be in respect to the fundamental education field.

Dr. SOUTHALL. I might say that, as you know, there is a volume of probably two or three hundred pages, every statement carefully documented, regarding control by the Federal Government, because a study was done as a piece of research on this very question of "Has there been Federal control where there has been Federal aid?" Senator JAVITS. In this field?

Dr. SOUTHALL. And in not a single instance could they show Federal control of it.

Senator JAVITS. Another thing I would like to point out in connection with your testimony is that, even if the administration's plan for Federal aid to needy school districts has now been modified to provide the definition of a needy school district shall include what it is doing for its teachers-this is something which we developed here in this testimony with Mr. Flemming-I think that that already demonstrates acceptance by all, including the administration, who are concerned with the Federal aid to education bill.

Dr. SOUTHALL. I might say that, having been a rural school child, I have always been very much interested in rural children being

taught in a one-teacher school. It seems just so unfair because a child is just born over the line where the city extends, that that child should have to be deprived of those things that would mean so much to his growth and development.

As you know, the White House Conference showed that on rural education some of our wealthier farm States, where the big farmers are sending their children to private colleges and schools, are places where you find the one-teacher schools, where they either have a resident woman with very little education teaching, or they lose a teacher every year; that kind of thing.

I have been a State supervisor in North Carolina for 4 years, and I know the situation there; I know it in many of these States because I have studied the school facts.

Senator JAVITS. I am delighted to have this great organization, which I know so well, that you are representing on this, lined up with those of us who are fighting this battle here in the Congress.

May I say, too, that I know I speak for all my colleagues in expressing our gratitude to our distinguished Senator from Texas for presiding when some of us are preoccupied.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Javits.

I know everyone who is interested in the advancement of public education knows of the devoted interest of the senior Senator from New York in this subject and his strong support for it.

Dr. Southall, there is one fact in here that I think is of great interest. On page 1 of your statement, in talking of your public opinion poll conducted through the 1,400 branches of the American Association of University Women, you state that it revealed that all of the States and communities support it.

Did your poll show that in each separate State where you took the poll the majority opinion was in favor of Federal aid?

Dr. SOUTHALL. I would like Mrs. Bell, our legislative associate, to answer that. I have the figures in my portfolio at home, but I am not sure I could give it to you exactly. But I believe you are correct on that.

Mrs. BELL. That is right.

Dr. SOUTHALL. I just wanted to be sure because they broke it down into every branch and every part of the country.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Another sentence of your statement I think should be emphasized here.

The speaker who preceded you-Mr. Biggs, speaking for the American Farm Bureau Federation-expressed the fear that Federal aid would lead to the decrease and decline of support in the local districts, that they would merely take the Federal money and then reduce their own contributions.

Your statement calls for Federal legislation so designed as to prevent any reduction of local and State effort for school purposes.

I think the former would be established by the Commissioner of Education. The bill provides for that; would certainly safeguard that. If a district or State were merely taking the Federal money to reduce their own effort, they would not receive that under the plan of this law.

Dr. SOUTHALL. I do not know, but it is my feeling that by Federal aid the public opinion has probably reached today the thinking we were in in 1905 about State aid. You know we feared State aid. And I can remember many speeches that I have listened to about how it was going to destroy our schools and all of that.

But what would our schools be if we had to depend on local aid? I think we in America get educated slowly, but it seems to me we are in the position today that we were in about 1905 regarding the State aid if I can judge what the public is thinking; not organized groups as such, but just the lay person that might be picked up on the polls.

Senator YARBOROUGH. As fine as your statement is, Dr. Southall, I just cannot let it pass without taking exception to one portion of it. That is the portion where you state that the children are unfortunate opportunity in being born in the rural sections of any State.

in

It is true the schools are poor in most rural areas. I grew up under one of those rural school systems, with 6 or 7 months of school a year, and I had the unfortunate experience of trying to crowd a school year into two 6-month terms that I taught or attempted to teach in a one-teacher school.

It is true that they have handicaps in the school system, but I think the children are fortunate to be born in a rural area, if they grow up there, because there are so many advantages aside from education. Dr. SOUTHALL. I was thinking in terms of the education, because of the schools. I was really narrowing it to education, not the other nice things which are there.

Senator YARBOROUGH. There are so many advantages to rural training.

Dr. SOUTHALL. I was thinking of those who do not survive like you and I did. I was the only one that finished the eighth grade in the rural school I went to. I am concerned about what happened to the other 13. It is people like that I was referring to, not the rural life as such.

If you could have good schools, which many rural communities have, I say you certainly would have the most wonderful place to be born, and I would be happy to modify that, just to limit it to education.

Senator YARBOROUGH. If you would modify it to the schools, I might agree with you, Dr. Southall.

Dr. SOUTHALL. Yes, but we have so many high school youths that will never get to go to college because they went to a rural high school that was not accredited. Most of their parents did not know it, because people do not know those things.

They love their high school, think it is wonderful-and in many ways it is-but they do not know that a child graduating from that high school is going to be penalized the rest of his life unless he is willing to get high school education after he thinks he has graduated. Senator YARBOROUGH. I think there the colleges are at fault, if they deny that student getting into college for the rest of his life. Dr. SOUTHALL. Of course, they can take reexaminations, but you know how that is, and how the rural child feels after he has been shoveling corn, to go back and take examinations all over again.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Many of the colleges over the country have individual standards. They let them in on individual approval when