there are political aspects which, unfortunately, have prevented the type of action for which the country looks. But we are encouraged that there are men like you and the other members of this committee who have so long fought for America's children, who will courageously fight not for a battle of words but for a battle of action for America's children.

Thank you, Senator, very much.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you for your testimony. I might ask you this: Did your organization support the drive for increased millage in the Detroit school situation?

Miss BORCHARDT. Definitely. You helped us.

Senator MCNAMARA. Do you accept this 140,000-plus classroom shortage figure?

Miss BORCHARDT. At least that. That is the minimum figure. Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you.

Miss BORCHARDT. Senator, it is always good to see that the elective process brings us real social leaders. May I also say when we talk about the difference between manual and professional laborers, and they say that relatively the professional workers' standing is lower, I do not like that approach. I like the approach that relatively the training given to the manual worker is being recognized so different, but equally as important as the training given to the professional worker. For example, the training of the electrical workers, of the United Association, of the machinists, patternmakers, done in close cooperation for college credit with colleges and universities-it is a mighty fine thing and we are proud to be identified with it because we are professional.

Senator MCNAMARA. I get your point, and you have no argument with me on this. I am sure we agree. However, the term "manual labor" is usually construed by the lay people to mean other than the skilled trades.

Miss BORCHARDT. We agree that it is misused.
Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you.

The next witness is Dr. W. W. Hill, Jr., of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce.

Dr. Hill, we are glad to have you here today.

I will ask you, in the interest of conserving time, if we may be allowed to print your statement in full, and have you summarize it as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF DR. W. W. HILL, JR., COUNCIL OF STATE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

Dr. HILL. Mr. Chairman. I will try to make it even more brief than the last two.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you, sir. You can be sure we will be happy to hear your entire statement.

Dr. HILL. My name is W. W. Hill, Jr. My home address is 4142 Norrose Drive, in Indianapolis, Ind. I am director of educational research for the College Life Insurance Company of America.

I appear here on behalf of the 28 member State and regional chambers of commerce which are listed on the last page of this statement. They have endorsed this statement and, in addition, the statement has been endorsed by the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce,

which is not a member, and the Salt Lake City (Utah) Chamber of Commerce, which is not a member.

It is difficult to avoid being repetitious as you hear witness after witness, and, being from Indiana, I think it might be just as well if I indicate what is happening in our State. It is a fairly average or typical State in size, in population, per capita income and in the rate of enrollment in the schools. Our teachers' salaries are about average.

Between 1934 and 1957 the number of pupils in our schools increased 27 percent and the number of teachers increased 50 percent. These teachers have enjoyed salary increases; not as much as they would like and not as much as most of us in Indiana would like, but they have increased from $1,797, the average in 1945, to $4,600 in 1958, an increase of 158 percent, and in terms of purchasing power an increase of about 60 percent.

As to the administrative personnel, we have superintendents who receive over $20,000 a year, many more over $15,000, assistant superintendents up to $12,000, and supervisors at $9,000. The salary of many of these superintendents exceeded those of our Governor, the justices of our supreme courts.

The principals of high schools in large cities receive more money than department heads of the State of Indiana.

In terms of the teacher problem, the number of college graduates qualifying for teaching positions increased by more than 50 percent in the 4 years from 1954 to 1958. We graduated 2,154 new teachers in 1954 and 3,361 in 1958. New graduates equal about 10 percent of the total teaching force of the State. At the high school level we are graduating enough new teachers to replace all of those now in the system in 6 years.

New classroom construction was low in Indiana until recent years. Indiana built only 402 classrooms in 1950-51. This number was doubled in 1953-54 when 957 were built. The 1954 volume was doubled by 56 when we constructed 1,823, and in 1958 we completed 2,050. We expect the level to be maintained and maybe increased.

State support in Indiana: Approximately 30 percent of the cost of our schools is furnished by the State government. The rest is mostly property taxes. In 1947 State support was $84 million; in 1949, $109 million; in 1951, $118 million; in 1953, $133 million; in 1955, $156 million; in 1957, $189 million. Then our last session of the legislature appropriated $206 million. That is an increase in 12 years from $84 million to $206 million.

I can say that certainly in each legislative session the State Chamber of Commerce in Indiana has supported increases in the appropriation for public schools; they have advocated State funds for buildings, which has never been accepted. It is just difficult to get any organization in Indiana to be favorable to State aid for buildings.

I do not know of any place, and our State department of public construction cannot tell me of any place where we have double shifts. They think there may be some in Lake County, but they don't know. We have a variety of devices to construct buildings in a manner to avoid an increase in the debt limitation. I do not think this is a logical process for financing construction, but it is working well in Indiana.

Our recent legislature made some of the best improvements ever, new legislation for school consolidation which has been a problem in the Midwest for a long time. We now have a county-wide tax levy instead of using the township or the schools in the cities. The minimum salary schedule for teachers was raised by $900 to $1,100 and we have a new foundation program, not accepted universally throughout the State as being the best possible approach but widely supported by State and local chambers of commerce. There was disagreement over the level of the salaries and whether or not you should have a single salary schedule, but the increases were supported.

Skipping over, it seems to me and the chambers for which I am speaking that Federal aid is definitely undesirable. Naturally, not everyone agrees on this or the need or the ability of the States. Federal school aid is undesirable, it seems to me, because it would tend to undermine our present decentralized and diversified system of education under State, local, and private control. Our present system encourages improvements, competition, pride, responsibility, experimentation, and financial support. It allows schools to make mistakes, but the absence of national directives and control makes it unlikely that all schools would take the same path or seek the wrong ends.

General Federal support for public education might well cause a deterioration in relative interest and a reduction in financial support as school boards and legislatures prepare budgets with Federal contributions in mind. School boards and legislatures will not allocate State and local funds as if the Federal funds did not exist. We do not do that now on Federal aid for highways, we do not do it on any of the programs. So we take into consideration what is a reasonable amount to spend, and then the amount from the Federal Government, and then State and local contributions. The Federal fund is not a bonus on top, but it is considered in the total amount to be spent.

I feel sure that many school districts would reduce or at least increase their local support at a lower rate if Federal contributions were made available.

What bothers me most, though, is that I am convinced that some Federal intervention, control, and regulation would, of necessity, follow a major Federal-aid program. That type of control has followed at the State level. Most of the policy regulations and decisions now regarding schools are made at State level. They are operated locally, but the State legislatures are making the decisions.

I would certainly not want to see that centralized in Congress. I am thoroughly convinced that once a general program of Federal aid is established there would be demands made on Congress that it provide for national certification of teachers to eliminate the lack of uniformity now among the States. And a national salary schedule for teachers not only to raise salaries but to eliminate the differences among the States. A national school board, which has been urged for a long time, would seem then essential, since Congress and the Federal Government are spending so much money on schools.

These are only a few of the things which I think would follow the expenditure of funds, not simply because Congress wants them—and I suspect Congress might not but the professional school organizations interested in improving the schools would find it much more

convenient to improve all these things at once than try to do it in the 48 States or 25,000 high schools or in the various school districts.

In order for the witnesses following me to have sufficient time, I will simply close by saying that over the years, as we all know, there has been a trend toward increasing centralization in government, ignoring principles of federalism. It is my hope that before this trend toward centralization engulfs all the State and local functions the trend will be reversed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you for your very fine statement. We appreciate your brevity.

I think the strongest thing you say in your statement are these words:

My conviction is that Federal support for education is unnecessary, undesirable, dangerous, discriminatory, and irresponsible.

We have had some measure of Federal aid to education for a long time. I am sure you recognize that. Nearly 100 years ago we had the land-grant colleges established. In more recent years we have had the Smith-Hughes Act. The federally impacted area bills have helped local school districts affected by the war and defense efforts. We have more recently had the veterans' educational acts.

Do you find in these laws that there has been unusual interference with local education in any of these programs?

Dr. HILL. Yes; I think so. Of course, some of the programs were not designed to help the schools or local communities, but to pay off what was considered delayed benefits to veterans. And the vocational education programs, in spite of 40 years of Federal aid, are still the weakest part of our public school system.

I do not think the programs are very good, and the total amount of money being spent is not large, but they continue paying lipservice to it. But in the vocational educational program the local school puts in those courses and then builds everything else around them. That teachers must be trained in accordance with Federal regulations, not State regulations or what the local school board might think, is desirable in a vocational educational teacher.

In the federally impacted areas program the principle is sound, though I do not think the program has been administered very well. To the extent that it is based entirely on the principle that local schools are being supported 100 percent by property, then this results in bonuses to those school districts, particularly in States where 50 percent of the support of the schools comes from the State legislature and not property taxes at all.

The land-grant colleges, most of them, find little difficulty in complying with Federal regulations. Occasionally there is some dispute, but not in recent years. If you are satisfied with the Federal regulations, it is fine.

But the land-grant colleges, which have done a wonderful job, have not necessarily done any better than colleges which have received no Federal funds on that basis.

Senator MCNAMARA. Except that we have those so-called landgrant colleges there and we otherwise would not have had them.

Dr. HILL. They would have been different, I suppose. When we appropriate money for Indiana University and Purdue University, we find out what Purdue and I.U. are getting from other sources, and then we deduct that from what we are going to need before we make an appropriation. I am not sure that the State of Indiana needs State and local tax relief quite as much as we might need Federal tax relief. Senator MCNAMARA. Obviously, if you got the Federal tax relief you would have more money for your local schools in the State, and if you get the money returned to you the State of Indiana sends it out and the results are about the same.

Dr. HILL. It gives us a chance to make decentralized decisions as to how the money shall be spent. In some places most of it would be spent for schools; in others it would be spent for other purposes.

I am amazed that the States have made the progress they have. I am from the largest city in Indiana and I do not believe there is a double-session classroom in my city or in the suburbs. We are told that there will be some in 3 or 4 years if we do not put up the school buildings, but we usually do.

I live in a school district with the highest tax rate in the State, and there is no complaint about it. We like the schools, we like to operate our schools, we like to make the decisions locally, and it certainly engenders support.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much, Dr. Hill.

Dr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement by Dr. Hill follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. W. W. HILL, JR.

My name is W. W. Hill, Jr. My home address is 4142 Norrose Drive, in Indianapolis, Ind. I am director of educational research for the College Life Insurance Co. of America.

I appear here on behalf of the 28-member State and regional chambers of commerce which are listed on the last page of this statement.

Most of my life has been devoted to public education; first, as a pupil, later as a teacher in a public university, and for the past 5 years as a student of public education.

My opposition to Federal support for schools is not of recent origin. As a sophomore in college I became concerned over the perennial efforts of organized groups in education to divert a portion of the responsibility for schools from the States and local communities to the Federal Government.

My conviction is that Federal support for education is unnecessary, undesirable, dangerous, discriminatory, and irresponsible.

FEDERAL SUPPORT IS NECESSARY

Since Reconstruction it has been argued that the States and local units of government would not and could not support schools and that the Federal Government would have to assume greater responsibility for public education in order to divert some sort of disaster. Many things have happened since the latter part of the 19th century, but they have not shaken the convictions of the proponents of Federal school support. Every improvement in public education seems to reinforce the dedication of those who favor Federal school aid.

In 1870 a bill was intrduced in Congress to establish a national school system, it being presumed that the States would not support public education. The President of the United States was to have the authority to appoint school superintendents and to determine whether or not the several States were operating satisfactory school systems. It is still the fear of many that a general program of Federal school support will lead to a national school system.