school buses. In time the Federal Government would be urged to approve textbooks and other classroom materials, as it now is doing under the National Defense Education Act, through the Office of Education. Federal certification for teachers, it can be argued, would assure the same minimum standards of instruction in all States for all pupils; make it easier for teachers to move from one State to another in search of employment; and reduce the undesirable competition for teaching positions. It can also be urged that the Federal Government already specifies the required training for teachers in vocational education programs financed with Federal funds and that this same protection should be afforded all pupils. Organizations and individuals keenly interested in foreign languages, mathematics, and science may feel that all students should have at least 2 years of such subjects and that this cannot be accomplished if left to the school communities and the States. Various interests will assure the public that Federal funds should be spent only for things in the public interest and that these subjects are vital to the security of the country. Driver education for all who drive is plausible. It is almost as plausible to require all people who will drive to take a course in driver education. Using such logic it can be urged that driver education be required for all pupils for our lives are endangered by drivers who do not know how to drive. Physical education, of course, is in the national interest and should be taken by all. A minimum amount of such education for all pupils, some will urge, should be made mandatory. The number of States now requiring physical education probably exceeds the number requiring a laboratory science or mathematics, and much larger than the number requiring foreign languages. These and other curriculum requirements will be urged upon Congress by many of the same organizations now supporting Federal school aid. They will genuinely feel that their recommendations and prescriptions are so good that all pupils should have them in equal quantities, or in stated minimum amounts. Federal funds should not be used to finance inefficient school districts. This seems reasonable. A similar cry regarding State support has been made in most of the States that are trying to reduce the number of small, inefficient high schools. I might very well be among those who demand that Congress do something about such schools that waste tax dollars on skeletal school programs. Let me illustrate. Florida has 67 school districts, Indiana has more than 1,000 and some States have more than 4,000. In the North Central States there are thousands of small high schools with enrollments of less than 100. Why should these schools be allowed to waste funds collected from the American taxpayer? If all the taxpayers of the Nation are going to help support wasteful schools, they will be reasonable in demanding that citizens therein give consideration to their recommendations. A national educational television network under the supervision and operation of the Office of Education could be demanded for the simple reason that educational television is considered to be a good thing and some States are refusing to utilize it. The National Education Association has long sought a national school board and would find the need immensely greater once the Federal Government embarked on a general school support program. This same organization, along with its dozens of affiliates, can be expected to seek a national minimum salary schedule. All of these things are desirable to some individuals and groups. Also, it seems logical and reasonable to ask the Government to regulate the purposes for which it spends money. To me, these expectations are quite real. Control over most of these matters already has been taken from the school communities and given over to State officials. The next step would be to move the control to Washington. Once the Federal Government is involved in teacher certification, fixing salaries, reorganizing school districts, and imposing curriculum standards, it would not be too difficult to funnel through the schools propaganda and indoctrination. The propaganda may be good, or it may be bad. If it can be done at all, it is dangerous. Further, I can see nothing inconsistent with the Federal Government, or more specifically, the Office of Education, approving the textbooks to be used in schools supported, in part, with Federal dollars. Dangerous, perhaps, but illogical, no. It might be contended that national approval of textbooks is in the national interest. A single provision at the beginning of an act forbidding officers and agencies of the Federal Government from interfering with personnel, curriculum, or personnel of the public schools is of little comfort. It can be altered. It can be evaded. More to the point, Congress can promptly enact other laws specifically requiring controls. Is there anyone anywhere who could have predicted the extent to which Federal controls have been imposed on the American farmer? The belief that Federal support will lead to Federal control seems to be growing. Recently, Aldai Stevenson included the following statement in one of his speeches: "The fear of surrendering to centralized control the responsibility for the education of our young is, I think, still valid. Because in a vast country like this, the further you remove the responsibility for education from the locality, the more you endanger the interest and concern and the sense of responsibility of the individual citizens in the community. And what we desperately need is more, not less, individual concern for education. Indeed, I think the need transcends classrooms, teachers, and all other school needs." At Atlantic City recently, Dr. Edgar Fuller, secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, told a group of the American Association of School Administrators that Federal control was being exercised under the new National Defense Education Act. No one disagreed with him during the meeting; others on the panel, including Dr. Finis Engleman, executive secretary of the American Association of School Administrators and Mr. Oliver Hodge, the State school superintendent of Oklahoma, shared his concern over Federal control and severely criticized the Federal controls now being imposed. Federal control will follow Federal aid just as surely as night follows the day, but it may not be apparent until the schools are so dependent on Federal support that they cannot conveniently relinquish what appears to be a free subsidy. FEDERAL SUPPORT IS DISCRIMINATORY Federal school support means that we discriminate against the citizens in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in favor of the citizens of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kentucky. This would be done without any real concern for existing spending patterns, tax burdens and without appreciation for cultural, economic, and social priorities of the citizens of the various school communities and States. Some States would gain money from the program and others would lose money. All might lose something more valuable than the subsidies-that is State and local control over education. Federal school support, through discrimination against some States in favor of others would tend to equalize school costs and perhaps per pupil expenditures. This might be more important if we could equate expenditures and educational achievements. This seems to be impossible. Naturally, a school system can be pauperized by lack of funds, but expensive schools are not necessarily good schools. Success has not blessed any of the serious efforts to find a correlation between expenditures and educational achievement. Larger school expenditures in the wealthier States do not necessarily result in higher educational achievements there as compared with achievements in States with less wealth and lower expenditures per pupil. Some States and some school districts simply have to pay higher salaries than others. Also, school expenditures are factors of pupil-teacher ratios and these are largely influenced by school unit organiza tion. The highest paid teachers in Indiana are employed by school districts in Lake County. But the most experienced and best trained teachers are employed in small towns of central and southern Indiana, where the average salaries are up to $1,000 less per year. An illustration of why certain States spend more than others is shown in the relative school construction costs. The U.S. Office of Education has made some interesting cost studies. For example, a few years ago when the Office of Education calculated building costs at $630 per pupil in Alabama, and $715 in Florida, it fixed the costs at $1,383 in Illinois, $1,447 in Maryland, and $1,483 in Ohio. H.R. 22, introduced by Congressman Metcalf, contains many discriminatory features. In this respect the bill is not unusual. A Federal program based on this bill would discriminate against States in which the school districts are efficient, States which are above average in income, and States which, for one reason or another, are not making an effort approximating the national effort. Schools in States with large numbers of small school districts and relatively few pupils would receive a windfall under H.R. 22. If they are in States which also fall below the average in income per school-age child, the bonus may be larger. This is true because States with large numbers of small schools tend to have unrealistic pupil-teacher ratios. This ratio magnifies per pupil costs and results in wasteful expenditures. Because the per pupil cost is high and the resulting effort substantial, such schools would get favorable treatment under H.R. 22. States with pupil-teacher ratios of 15 to 1 (North Dakota), 16 to 1 (South Dakota), 18 to 1 (Nebraska and Iowa), and similar ratios will show more effort, but not necessarily more results than States with pupil-teacher ratios of 25 to 1, or 30 to 1. Poor school organization in these States is not the fault of the Federal Government or the citizens of other States. Premiums should not be paid for such inefficiencies. Requiring the various States to render an effort equal to that of the effort of the average State is arbitrary. While it is designed to assure that States will exercise substantial efforts and to give relatively more money to some States and relatively less to others, this entire purpose might not be achieved. It is possible, of course, for all States to relax in their financial efforts and depend on Congress for more and more support. It is not possible to devise fair Federal support distribution formulas. There are objections to returning to each State a percentage of its Federal net income tax payments; objections to fixed and uniform payments per pupil; wealth and ability factors have their critics, as do all other formulas. There seems to be no fair way of discriminating against approximately half the population in half the States. Since the States that would be benefiting by the discriminatory action are not demanding special consideration, and since the States and local governments are doing a much better job in education than the Federal Government is doing in the administration of its untold number of services, and since the Federal Government cannot afford the services now being performed, it would seem unwise to have it attempt the task of providing the impossible, a program of fair and equitable school support without Federal regulations. FEDERAL SUPPORT IS IRRESPONSIBLE Most legislatures are required by their State constitutions to provide for a system of public schools. No such mandate appears in the Federal Constitution. It is not responsible government for Congress to assume a role which is a legal obligation of the various States. Neither is it responsible government for the central authority to assume functions which are clearly local in nature. We can assume, of course, that Federal funds would be of assistance to many school districts throughout the Nation. It also is possible that other school districts could be weakened by relying on Federal subsidies. School boards and local taxpayers may decide to wait for more congressional appropriations before raising teachers' salaries, constructing more buildings, buying needed equipment, or adding new personnel for guidance and counseling. CONCLUSION We fully realize that the long-term trend has been in the direction of increased centralization of governmental functions and that few areas are immune to Federal influence and regulation. We sincerely hope that this trend will run its course before it engulfs public education. The member State and regional chambers of commerce in the Council of State Chambers of Commerce which have endorsed the foregoing statement are as follows: Alabama State Chamber of Commerce. Missouri State Chamber of Commerce. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce. Empire State Chamber of Commerce (New York). Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce. Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce. South Carolina State Chamber of Commerce. East Texas Chamber of Commerce. South Texas Chamber of Commerce. West Texas Chamber of Commerce. Lower Rio Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce (Texas). West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. Wisconsin State Chamber of Commerce. In addition to the above-listed chambers of commerce, the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and the Salt Lake City (Utah) Chamber of Commerce endorse this statement. Senator MCNAMARA. Now our last witness this morning is Mr. Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Mr. Mitchell, we are glad to have you here this morning. I see you have a comparatively short statement. We would be glad to have you proceed in your own manner. STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Senator McNamara. I would, if you do not mind, like to read it. I think it would be more brief that way. Senator MCNAMARA. All right, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to appear and present testimony on behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. As Congress considers this legislation, it would be a good idea to watch the developments in the legislature now meeting on the other side of the Potomac. The Virginia Governor's commission, in a report issued March 31, 1959, boldly advocates that the legislature authorize local communities to sell public-school property as a means of avoiding compliance with Federal court desegregation decisions. I have a 2-paragraph excerpt from the committee's official report which says, on page 14: The commission recommends the passage of an additional act which would permit the qualified voters to petition the court of record for their city, county, or town to order a referendum to be held to determine if the special school property or properties, personal, real, or both, is any longer needed for public purposes. If a majority of the voters voting in such referendum find that a specific parcel of property is no longer needed, the property shall be sold by the school board under the applicable provisions of law. A bill to carry out this recommendation is included in the appendix of this report. This report is supposed to be the new and modern approach in Virginia. It should be noted in passing that the commission admits that the State received $12 million from the Federal Government for the operation of public schools in the year 1957-58. There is no suggestion that this money be handed back as a protest against the Supreme Court, nor is there an indication that similar funds will be rejected in the future. In other words, the Virginia concept of States rights seems to stop at the window where the checks are handed out. We have urged that Public Laws 815 and 874 include protection against improper expenditure of the Federal funds provided by these laws. Congress has declined to include such language for a number of reasons, but one of the principal reasons given is that the executive branch can do what is required without additional authority. The year 1958 offers two illustrations of how the executive branch is tolerating and even encouraging defiance of the law. In Pulaski County, Ark., $800,000 in Federal funds made possible the construction of a public school for children of civilian and military personnel at the Little Rock Air Force Base. When that school opened in September 1958, colored children were excluded and they are still excluded even though the sole justification for this school is that it is to serve children whose parents work on the base or are there on military duty. At last count, this school was equipped to serve approximately 1,200 children. There are about 120 colored children who would be eligible to attend if they were not barred because of race. This is an example of Federal toleration of illegal use of aid to education funds. At the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama 21 acres of land were transferred to Huntsville, Ala., school district in 1958. This land is to be used for a segregated elementary school. I refer to this case as an instance in which the executive branch is encouraging defiance of the law, because it could have been avoided. If the military authorities had kept the land and built a school on it, the present policies of the Department of Defense, which require that all children who are eligible be admitted without regard to race, would have insured that there would have been no segregation. Thus, those who are responsible for this land transfer have succeeded in overruling the Chief Executive and the Secretary of Defense. Instead of calling a halt to this kind of insubordination, the Department of Defense has attempted to justify it as follows: Under the provisions of existing laws and policies established by the U.S. Commissioner of Education, children residing in federally impacted areas must be educated in schools operated and controled by local public school agencies in accordance with local laws and standards unless the local agency is unable to provide such education. |