STATEMENT BY SENATOR STUART SYMINGTON TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

I should like to thank the chairman and members of this subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to present my support for the general concept of Federal aid to education. I emphasize that my support is for Federal aid and not Federal control.

Those of us who have long felt a grave concern over inadequate public support for education have followed these hearings with interest and are aware of the service this subcommittee has performed in focusing attention upon this critical problem.

Fore more than a decade now, distinguished educators and experts in the field of public education have been appearing before the Congress with an imposing array of data indicating the gaps in our educational system. Recent eventsincluding our growing awareness of a different kind of "gap"-have given added emphasis to their pleas for additional Federal action in this field.

Long before the reported accomplishments of the Soviet Union in the scientific and technical training of Communist youth, there was recognition of the im. portance of education to our national well-being. But all too often, that recognition has been in the form of platitudes rather than positive action.

A MATTER OF NATIONAL CONCERN

Throughout the entire history of this great country, the adequate education of our youth has been a matter of national concern. This concern has been an expression of both group and individual values in our society.

First, our wise leaders have recognized the vital importance of education to the fulfillment of the goals expressed in our national existence. These leaders knew that the continued success of our great experiment in democracy depended on an informed and intelligent citizenry. From Washington and Jefferson, through Lincoln and the two Roosevelts, to Truman and Eisenhower, this theme runs like an uninterrupted strand.

Today, as the problems facing our Nation become increasingly complex, and as the decisions of all levels of Government affect more and more aspects of our daily lives, the needs increase for an electorate that is able to reason intelligently, capable of analyzing new proposals, and critical in its examination of men and ideas. These needs transcend State and local boundaries.

Of equally fundamental importance, is the value of education to the individual as an individual.

In a society that has fortunately remained relatively free of class distinctions, public education has provided the key that has unlocked the door to a better future for the children of even the poorest members in the community.

Through public education, the immigrant and his descendants have been assimilated into the mainstream of our Nation.

Perhaps more than any other single institution, public education has implemented the phrase "equality of opportunity" that has characterized the American goal.

The physical frontiers of a new country have been replaced by the frontiers of knowledge as a challenge to our young people. As an "equalizer” of opportunity, therefore, education is of even greater importance today than in previous generations. When we fail to provide adequate public educational opportunities for the youth in any section of the Nation, we are, in effect, depriving many of them of the opportunity to compete on equal terms with their bettereducated neighbors.

These aspects of education-its importance for the life of the society and for its impact upon the individual-are of continuous importance and must not be overlooked as we face up to our immediate problems. When we do turn to these problems, however, the national needs for an educated populace become even more apparent and more pressing.

Today, our role as a leader of the free world, our example to the emerging new nations, and our very existence are dependent, in varying degrees, upon our capacity to train the youth of our Nation in the highly specialized skills demanded by our space-atomic age. In addition, the nature of the Communist challenge makes it imperative that our young people be made aware of the basic values upon which our civilization rests.

This challenge calls for a wide variety of responses, for it is based upon a wide variety of fronts. We find ourselves in a protracted conflict with no suc

cessful termination in sight. We must be prepared to meet Sino-Soviet advances in economic, psychological, and technological-as well as militarycompetition.

We cannot afford to underestimate the capabilities of the Communist bloc, or deemphasize the strides they have made. Within 40 years, a semifeudal, agricultural-based nation has been turned into a world power challenging the entire free world. It has now been joined by the world's largest population center, China, which has announced its intention of industrializing within 10 years. This has not been accomplished by giving illiterate peasants machine tools. The formidable progress of Russia, has been accompanied by advances in education of a truly remarkable nature.

In addition to virtually wiping out illiteracy, the Russians have brought to mass education the high standards that characterized pre-Revolutionary elite education. We should never forget that the Russians have had a long tradition of scholarship. The continuation of this has been evidenced by their progress in many of the pure sciences and in the physical sciences in particular. The reports of our own scientists who have returned from visits to the Soviet Union suggest a large, and ever expanding, body of competent scientists capable of carrying out basic research in widely diffuse areas of science.

When we add to this an expanding China, with, incidentally, its own historic tradition of honoring scholarly endeavor-we can grasp the seriousness of the threat facing us and the need to improve and increase our own efforts.

The demands of national defense and security for trained personnel are something with which all of us are familiar. The figures from our World War II experience, are an appalling indictment of our failure to provide adequate educational opportunities for all our people prior to that time. During this conflict, some 5 million men were rejected as 4-F. While the precise percentage is not available, it is an accepted fact that a great many of these young men were rejected for reasons that could have been corrected by proper schooling and basic health measures. Aside from the impact upon the individuals concerned, this significant loss to our military effort cannot be overemphasized.

In the 14 years since World War II, the educational gap has not been closed. The challenge facing us today is more serious than ever before in our history. Our military technology has grown increasingly complex since World War II and with this complexity have come new demands upon our servicemen.

The industrial base upon which our economy and, therefore, our ultimate defense rests, likewise shows a corresponding need for individuals possessing highly developed skills. Our modern technology is rapidly making the common laborer a symbol of historical interest rather than of contemporary concern. Backing up both our military might and our industrial base must be an ever increasing reservoir of scientists and technicians capable of undertaking both the engineering and basic research efforts essential to our well-being.

Additionally, there is a pressing need for future leaders with the vision and wisdom that can only come with broad knowledge of history, of languages, of customs, of economics, of the arts; not only of America, but of all other parts of the world looking to us for understanding and leadership.

All these elements of our future national security and progress-trained service personnel, skilled industrial workers, competent scientists and technicians, leaders in the humanities-can come from only one source: The present and future generations of schoolchildren.

It is essential that these schoolchildren, our most precious resource, be provided with the best possible teachers and educational facilities to prepare for the immense responsibilities facing them and the Nation.

THE NEED FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION

In the many hearings on this subject during the past 10 years, it has become increasingly clear that there is a need for Federal participation in the field of public education. This is not a point of abstract philosophy, but a statement of demonstrable fact.

This need has been greatly intensified by certain national nonlocal factors. During the calamitous depression of the 1930's, funds for the adequate financing of our schools were not available. As our entire economic system was shaken, schools, like all public services, were reduced to the barest minimum. In the 1940's there was World War II with its diversion of the physical and human resources of the entire Nation to military actions throughout the world. While local financial abilities increased, the availability of the materials neces

sary for building needed school facilities decreased almost to the vanishing point.

Since the end of World War II, when materials necessary for the war effort were again available for civilian needs, many school districts throughout the country have carried on intensive programs of school construction. Yet this effort, spectacular as it has been, has not proved sufficient to meet the needs brought about by the growth of our population and the obsolence of existing facilities.

At the beginning of this school year, the Office of Education reported a nationwide classroom shortage of 140,500 units. This classroom shortage is not a new or unique problem for 1959, but rather is a cumulative situation.

In some sections of our country, a while generation of schoolchildren has been denied the opportunity of attending public school under anything approaching adequate conditions.

When we look at the supply of trained and competent teachers, we find the shortage at least as serious as that in facilities. Official figures show that during this school year there is a minimum need for 132,200 more teachers.

In this, as in the shortage of classrooms, the States and local communities have made efforts to meet the needs but the results have fallen far short of the desired goals.

Teachers' salaries have shown an upward trend during recent years. Yet, in spite of this fact, when we consider the importance of the job, the training necessary for teaching, and the hours spent in working, the public-school teachers of America are still one of the most underpaid groups in our whole society.

PRISONERS OF DOGMA

Now is the time for action. The correlation between education and our national interest is, I believe, a matter beyond dispute. We cannot afford the luxury of waiting for the education problem to solve itself.

If we are realistic, we cannot anticipate the full solution of this problem from State and local sources. There is too much variation in what the States and school districts are able and willing to do.

We cannot become prisoners of obsolete dogma.

We are told that Federal aid threatens our long established tradition of local control over education. This serious charge has been leveled at every proposal for Federal aid to education that has been submitted to Congress in recent years. If, however, we examine our history, we find that this charge is without basis. We have had Federal aid to education since before our Constitution was signed and have devised new forms of aid during the course of our national existence. Can anyone really say that these Federal activities have led to the demise or diminution of local control?

Since 1950, we have had continuing programs of Federal assistance for federally impacted school districts. No one familiar with the operation of these programs contends that either Public Law 815 or Public Law 874 has led to Federal control. On the contrary, these programs have bolstered local control by allowing the school districts to conduct their business on a much sounder financial basis.

Sound proposals for aiding in school construction and teachers' salaries will likewise have a beneficial effect. By aiding the local authorities in meeting their responsibilities, the Federal Government, far from controlling will actually be strengthening these community agencies.

The loss of local control-should this occurrence ever happen-will come not from measures like the Murray-Metcalf bill, but rather from the inability of the local districts to perform their necessary functions in a manner that can build public confidence.

We are not searching for panaceas.

Enactment of a particular measure will not automatically do away with all the problems in our system of public education. But legislation providing Federal assistance for school buildings and teachers' salaries, coupled with a continued and vigorous activity on the part of State and local authorities will be a long stride in the right direction.

This problem has been with us now for several years. Hearings have been held that fill thousands of pages with testimony. The matter has been debated on the floor of Congress on several occasions. The facts are in and the issue has been fairly drawn.

Let us no longer delay the enactment of legislation for an adequate national education assistance program.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLAIR ENGLE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present to the committee my views on Senate bill 2, the Murray bill, which should alleviate our critical shortage of classrooms and remedy the inadequacies in the salaries of our teachers. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am anxious to go on record as being wholeheartedly in support of the effort to wipe out substandard schools and substandard education.

Presenting the case for Federal aid to education has been made somewhat easier these days. After the Russians launched Sputnik I, the people of the United States were made aware for the first time that the scientific education of this country was not what it should be. This also reflected on the state of education in general. The continued manifestations of Russia's success in the field of missiles and satellites has done as much to argue the case than has the compelling testimony of our legislators and educators. It is indeed regrettable that it has taken an affront to our competitive spirit to arouse us to a sense of urgency about a situation that has existed for some time.

The resistance of the vocal opponents of Federal aid to education is beginning to break down. The passage of the Defense Education Act in the 2d session of the 85th Congress, and the great success of the programs created by that act, has done much to undermine opposition. There are still features of the legislative proposals that are vigorously objected to, but the major objection now seems to be the extent of the Federal obligation to provide assist

ance.

With regard to general objections to S. 2, the case has been built on the three-pronged thesis that such aid destroys local initiative; that it results in Federal control over the school operation; and that it places on the shoulders of the whole Nation a tax burden that should be carried by the respective State and local governments.

These arguments have been thoroughly penetrated and shattered. Testimony before this committee by responsible educators has exposed the first two themes as pure myths. The facts clearly show that State and local governments receiving Federal assistance for education have strained themselves to a greater degree than has the Federal Government. The facts show that school districts receiving such aid are not beholden to their benefactor in making up their curricula, in choosing their teachers, in setting up their operation. The evidence plainly shows that the schools are free to run their own shops, that they are free to stick to the three R's or to encourage handicrafts or homemaking. We need no better proof that there is no validity to the argument of Federal "intervention" than to take a look at the educational program in federally impacted areas under Public Law 874. The "tax" argument offered by the opponents of Federal aid to education is perhaps the most illogical of the three. It indicates, first of all, a refusal to recognize the severe limitations of the local tax structure. And, it indicates a failure to recognize that the effects of education cut across State and local boundaries. Certainly, with the tremendous interstate movement of the American people, the educational achievements in each State are the concern of all the States. And, certainly, in the face of Russia's startling success in satellites and missiles, we cannot afford to take the shortsighted attitude reflected in this argument.

Questions of a budgetary nature must be resolved before we can come to grips with the education problem. With rising concern over the size of the national debt and a corresponding effort to maintain a balanced budget, we must make hard decisions on how to finance the level of school support we believe essential. Of one thing I am certain-that the American economy can afford to invest a higher percentage of the gross national product in education than it does at the present time. And this is an investment which should pay the highest dividends in terms of future national income as well as national security. For this reason, our major efforts should be aimed at awakening the public to a sense of urgency about the situation. These efforts should be aimed at awakening the American people and our legislators to a realization that time is very short if we are to preserve the American way of life. There is an appalling slackness in our public school education that must be overcome immediately if we are to keep pace in the space age. We are becoming more and more aware of the vigorous education the Soviets are giving their youngsters. But we still need to impress upon our legislators that our educational needs represent a crisis at least as worthy of financial assistance as our highway or housing or airport needs.

Just what are the dimensions of the problem? We have, first of all, a shortage of some 140,000 classrooms-resulting in the deplorable situation of 9 million children exceeding the present school capacity. (While approximately 2 million children are forced to part-time sessions because of lack of adequate classrooms, when we consider the ideal class size of 30 pupils per teacher, we have 9 million children exceeding our school capacity.) We have, next, a critical shortage of teachers. It has reached the figure of 132,000 and continues to move upward. It is superfluous for me to stress the point that this is due largely to the pitiful salaries teachers in many school districts receive. We have, in short, the situation of hundreds of thousands of children getting a part-time education, and hundreds of thousands more being cheated of effective instruction because classes are too large.

While California is doing a great deal to meet the problem locally, we still have a vital interest in the enactment of the Murray bill, S. 2. There is a great influx of people coming to California and the contribution they can make to the State's welfare depends on the level of their education. It is just as much to our interest to aid them in their home States as it would be if they were natives of California. In any event, we are one Nation, and the fate of all of us depends on the educational level maintained in the poorest States.

These are the tangibles. But there is a more insidious aspect to the problem. It is in the shocking number of teachers of substandard qualifications that our poorer communities are forced to hire. This is not because they are less aggressive or less imaginative than other communities. It is because they are trapped within the narrow confines of a limited, inflexible tax structure and they must stand by helplessly as their qualified men and women turn away from the teaching profession to take jobs that will pay them a living wage.

It is a serious situation, and unless the Federal Government does something about it we stand a good chance of becoming a nation of "schools without scholars." The consequences will reach far into the future and they will be felt in the caliber of the scientists and engineers and researchers who emerge from our colleges. College graduates of high quality are, after all, not merely the product of their college training. They represent the envolvement of layer upon layer of education and training beginning in the elementary and secondary schools.

There is an answer to the situation. It lies in the realization that it is unrealistic to expect that State and local sources of revenue can maintain and build the kind of educational system we want and need for our children. It lies in the realization that the situation demands the breadth and strength and flexibility of a financial structure that only the Federal Government possesses. It lies in the realization that we cannot do the job with halfway measures. We must provide for an adequate program that makes adequate financial assistance available. If we do not accept this thesis, millions of children in this country will be cheated out of their basic rights and the harm done will be irreparable. Losses in education suffered in the formative years cannot be made up. If we allow the Federal Government to default on this responsibility we stand to risk our national economic strength, our security, our very survival.

We need, I repeat, to awaken our legislators and the American people to the urgency of the situation, and to make a concerted effort to convince them that the Murray bill now under consideration meets the two most critical problems in our public school system-the shortage of classrooms and the inadequacy of teachers' salaries.

In passing, I would like to comment on the Murray bill's provision to reduce the annual grant by the percentage by which the State's school effort is below the national average. This provision creates a formula to measure effort, and should do much to encourage States to go to the limit of their local financial abilities in meeting the challenge.