Page images

On a per child distribution of a billion dollars of Federal aid for schools, Kentucky would have received approximately $22 million.

The following table shows how the Federal tax burden would be distributed by income level in Kentucky compared with the distribution of the State tax burden to raise the $22 million of Federal aid for which the State would be eligible.

The table shows that for each of the income groups in Kentucky, at each income level the Federal burden is less than a considerable sum of money than the State tax burden would be to raise the $22 million we are talking about.

[blocks in formation]

The above tables developed from Musgrave, Richard A. (professor of economics, University of Michigan), “The incidence of the Tax Structure and Its Effect on Consumption"; testimony before the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, Subcommittee on Tax Policy, November 9, 1955; and data on tax collections by States.

We do not intend to burden the record with a host of tables showing the breakdown of tax collections for each of the States. However, our office will be glad to supply the data for the other States on request.

Senator MURRAY. We will be glad to take advantage of that. We will have our staff contact you.

Mr. JACOBS. This illustrative data shows that it makes a great deal of difference to the taxpayers of this country whether the Federal Government or the State and local governments collect this money. In the interests of sparing the low income-tax payers at least some small part of the added burden for schools which they have been assuming over the years, we support the Murray-Metcalf principle and support it particularly against any proposal to bond low income wage earners through a loan program, such as is proposed by the administration, in whatever guise.


Mr. Chairman, a lengthy treatise would be required to set forth the many additional reasons why S. 2 ought to be passed. Let me refer briefly to just a few of them.

You are aware as I am that our democracy becomes ever more complicated, and that without an ever higher level of education, our people will be unable to take part in the democratic decisions that must be made.

Recently, I heard Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt describe the extent to which Russia is teaching obscure foreign languages to its children so that they may be ready to take part in the grand plan for international relations that the Soviet Union has developed. The Germans and Russians are winning over markets in which our salesmen are handicapped because they can't speak the local language; in this country, I understand, three-fourths of our high-school children get no training in languages while, according to James Conant, most of what is taught the others is practically worthless.

We find that thousands of draftees must be sent home after basic training because they lack the background to make them fit for service. Because of illiteracy and general lack of educational background in many communities of the country so many boys are rejected during time of emergency that, in the words of the Selective Service System, the boys from communities which provide better education ** **

pay in lives for the educational deficiencies” in States with poor educational programs.-(Selective Service System, Special Monograph No. 10, Vol. 1, "Special Groups" 1953, p. 166.)

The education required to fit a soldier for tomorrow's army will set standards very much higher than those which so many American boys now fail.

Automation poses new needs for education; so does the advance of the nuclear war and industrial age. Yet 90 percent of our high school students are not taught trigonometry, more than half are not taught geometry, three-fourths study no physics, two-thirds get no training in chemistry.

We are equally concerned with the fact that 90 percent of the children in high schools receive no training in art. More than two-thirds get no instruction in music. The cultural meaninglessness of much of that is presented on TV and the boom in comic books suggest the extent to which our cultural heritage in literature, music, art, and other areas of our lives is being neglected.


The administration education proposal offers nothing that even begins to measure up to what is needed. Their program is a temporary one which will provide only a small sum of money each year, a maximum of $300 million, to enable some of the already overburdened States to go even further into debt.

While it may assist bankers to make loans to some States now ineligible for loans, thus helping bankers and brokers, it will do pitifully little to help meet the school problems one encounters in nearly every corner of the United States. Whatever help might come through the administration program would reach many school districts only after costly delay resulting from the need to increase limits on bonded indebtedness.

The omission of aid for teachers' salaries is an especially critical defect. The administration apparently regards as acceptable the present pay scales for teachers, whose pay is now slotted somewhere between gas station attendants and laundry drivers.

I believe that laundry workers, gas station attendants, window washers, and many other workers, skilled, unskilled, and professional, do not get enough pay. But, unquestionably, if the education system is indeed vitally related to our national strength and security, as Secretary of HEW Flemming has said it is, then surely the average annual wage of $4,775 for teachers is not enough.

So long as it remains true that one-sixth of the Nation's teachers receive less than $3,500 per year, there is a grievious defect in the schools and in the public attitude toward them.


We want to commend the sponsors of S. 2 for including fair labor standards in their bill and support, specifically, the suggestion made by Mr. Peter Schoemann on behalf of the AFL-CIO that this provision of the bill be strengthened by including the provision for overtime payments for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.

BILL REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ACTION Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the fact that some members of this committee have continued to make the good fight for an education bill, year after year, in spite of tremendous odds against them. They deserve the commendation and thanks of the country as do all those who have supported them in this effort.

They have the wholehearted support of our union. We know the sums which S. 2 would make available only begin to meet the problem with which the bill deals, and that the bill represents only a step toward the proper assumption by Congress of the national share of the cost of public education.

However, we appreciate the study, the devotion, and the years of effort that have gone into this bill and the similar bills that have been introduced in this and previous sessions of Congress.

We trust and hope that the effort that has been put forth will be rewarded not by a legislative pigeonhole nor by a veto. Much more important than the fact that this effort deserves to be rewarded is the fact that the people need, want, and deserve that this legislation be passed.

We urge that this program be adopted with all due haste.

Senator MURRAY. We thank you very much for your very excellent statement.

I have received a statement from Howard A. Dawson, executive secretary of the Department of Rural Education, National Education Association, including a statement from Mr. Emery Wine of Kingman, Kans., a farmer and merchant, and former Liaison Officer for Education, U.S. Bureau of the Budget.

Without objection this statement will be included in the record of today's hearing.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)


Gentlemen of the committee, for 10 years, 1934 to 1944, I was the legislative representative of the National Education Association. During those years I made many friends among your cohorts, and some of you still know me as a stanch advocate of Federal aid to the States in support of public schools.

During the active years of my direct advocacy of Federal aid, I was a professional and personal friend of many persons in positions of administrative responsibility. I have also enjoyed such confidence in recent years. In 1954 and 1955, I was one of the seven consultants to the committee for the White House Conference on Education, the consultant on educational organization, Federal, State, and local. I was greatly honored by that appointment, and I served as loyally as I knew how. I think the 1955 White House Conference was a great success and I especially honor its chairman, Neil McElroy, the present Secretary of Defense, a great citizen and one of America's foremost friends of public education.

During the days when Emery Wine was an official of the Bureau of the Budget in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations he was loyal to those administrations and at the same time a most trusted and valuable friend to his cohorts in education.

We saw many forward steps toward the desirable acceptance of more national responsibility for financing education. We saw the Lanham Act passed. It was good, but not enough. We later saw the act for assistance to federally impacted areas passed, Act 815 and Act 874good acts, but still not reaching the heart of the problem of the real and fundamental need for Federal aid for public schools.

We saw President Truman propose a 10-point platform, the second of which points was an unequivical advocacy of Federal aid for education. He went so far as to accept the bill offered by the late and honored Senator Robert A. Taft, for Federal aid for education. That bill passed the Senate, but unfortunately died in the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Now, we see the United States in all sorts of difficulties with respect to schools from kindergarten through higher education and graduate school. Certainly now is the time for far more fundamental action than has yet been taken by the Congress of the United States. Your records are replete with incontrovertible facts and it would be superfluous for me to repeat them or even to summarize them.

My chief objective here is to read into the record the statement of Mr. Wine, who, as I have told you, is not only a well-informed, highly intelligent, and loyal Midwest American citizen, farmer and businessman, but also a man with years of devoted service to his country through high positions in the executive branch of the U.S. Government. However, before doing that I want to say a few things as the executive secretary of the Department of Rural Education, National Education Association, concerning the implications of the MurrayMetcalf bill for the education of the children of migratory agricultural workers, truly the children of misfortune and one of our Nation's most underprivileged groups.

Aside from the obvious major effect that passage of the Murray-Metcalf bill will have on improving the quality of education, the possibility of meeting a dire need for providing funds for the education of children of migrant farmworkers makes this bill of particular concern to the Department of Rural Education of the NEA.

Accurate figures on the number of migrant American farm families are at present impossible to determine; 600,000 children affected is a conservative estimate. Present laws provide that children may not be employed during school hours. However, many communities, even those willing to do so, cannot provide extra teachers or facilities to take care of the migrant children for the few weeks they may be temporarily living in a certain area. Under the provisions of the Murray-Metcalf bill each State may determine to use part of its grant for teachers' salaries. If such a determination is made, threefourths of the money is to be distributed to the districts in proportion to the number of teachers employed. The other one-fourth may be used as the State agency deems best. It is conceivable that State education officials may well determine to set aside a portion of this fund to provide extra, temporary teachers in those areas affected by migrants.

I wish to stress that no requirement that this be done should be incorporated into the proposed legislation, which is admirable in its lack of controls. Such a program as is herein described will be proposed to the States. It is most likely that in many States it will be accepted. The State officials are concerned about the education of migrant children but are largely powerless to assist in the program because of lack of adequate financial resources. Since these children are frequently nonresidents of the States there are often legal (and sometimes psychological) barriers to including them in regular school foundation programs. However, using a portion of the Federal grants under the Murray-Metcalf bill for this purpose would be logical, practical, and we believe widely accepted.

The Department of Rural Education supports the Murray-Metcalf bill mainly because it is the best piece of legislation yet to come before Congress de signed to meet the national responsibility for education, while firmly retaining the tradition of local and State control of public schools. This fact alone is sufficient reason for wholehearted support of the proposal. However, in addition to substantial, vitally needed aid to public schools in general, the opportunity to benefit migrant children is also inherent in the bill; hence the Department of Rural Education has doubly strong reasons to support the MurrayMetcalf bill without reservation.

With the consent of the chairman, I now wish the statement prepared by Mr. Wine to be included in my statement. I am so much in agreement with it that I prefer it not to be included as a quote but as an integral part of this entire statement.

STATEMENT OF EMERY WINE, KINGMAN, KANS. Farm people traditionally have championed the cause of the "common school.” In community after community during the advance westward in the 2d half of the 19th century, the construction of the schoolhouse and the employment of a teacher were primary concerns of the pioneers.

By the turn of the century, farm communities without exception could and did pride themselves on the schoolhouse as a place of learning and as a community center. In these same years of national expansion into the great farmlands of the Midwest and the West, State legislatures one after another provided compulsory taxation laws to bolster spontaneous community effort. By 1890 every State in the Union had provided legally for the "common school.”

As a people we have sought first to solve our problems in the communities in which we live; lacking the resources or facing problems lying beyond the local community, we have turned to the larger community of the State. We have chosen the avenues of State government to provide ourselves with many instruments of service.

Where the public interest and welfare transcend the capacity of community and of State—as in education—we turn to the wider national community and there seek the solution. Federal support for educational purposes is no more than the national community bringing to bear its greater resources and capacities in behalf of its members.

The American people believe strongly that education is the means by which equality of opportunity and status are to be realized. Perhaps the best proof of this belief is the fact that nearly 90 percent of the boys and girls aged 14 through 17 are in school today as compared with less than 10 percent in 1900.

The tempo of change has been so great in many localities and States that they have been unable to keep pace in the organization and fiscal structure needed to implement the large and rapid growth of public school enrollment.

We must find a way to accelerate the efforts being made by States and localities to provide a better education for all of our children and youth. Those who oppose such implementation are standing in the way of the fuller realization of an ideal which has its origins in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If America is ever to show the world that it is evangelistic rather than complacent about democracy, let her do so by providing the kinds of education for all children which will make "equality of opportunity" a reality. I believe free enterprises will not survive in America unless this is done, and done quickly.

The factor of greatest importance in the acceleration of the movement to provide better education for all youth, is additional funds. At this point, I would like to address myself in a general way to the "great plains areas."

The financing of schools was originally a local-State affair. Local general property taxes were supplemented by small amounts from the State. With the growth and influence of corporate interests State support was withdrawn.

In more recent years (1937 and since in Kansas), the State gradually has increased financial assistance to local schools from funds derived from State property, sales, and other forms of taxation. At the same time, legislation for the improvement of the schools has not kept abreast of social and economic conditions which have altered the functions and needs of the schools. Attempts to broaden the tax base have been opposed by corporate interests. Schools still receive the major portion of their support from the general property tax dollar,

« PreviousContinue »