the two primary causes, and of about equal importance, are: (1) Economic conditions in the home, and (2) lack of interest in school. These studies suggest that, contrary to the general belief, the number of children who are working because they did not want to continue in school is about as great as the number who left school because they had to go to work.

This is true in rural as well as in urban communities. As long ago as 1920, the National Child Labor Committee issued a report, after checking school attendance in rural schools in several areas of the country, which stated:

But there is another reason for nonattendance * * * the inadequacy of our rural schools. They are not performing their function with sufficient success to win over prejudiced and indifferent parents, to compensate them for the immediate dollars and cents loss that may result from the loss of the help of the children on the farm, nor with sufficient success even to make the child prefer school to work. Unquestionably the majority of country children of school age who are not enrolled in school and those who do not attend regularly are helping on the farm, but it by no means follows that this work is the cause of their nonattendance. Rather it is an excuse-it is not often that the child who wishes to stay in school is made to stay out and help on the farm. (Farm Labor and School Attendance, by Gertrude Folks, National Child Labor Committee, 1920.) Subsequent studies bear this out. Even in the States where we assumed poor attendance is due to the demand for children to work in the fields, it is found that indifference to school ranks high as a reason for nonattendance, second only to work, and furthermore that children who are out of school for work stay out for longer periods than they are actually needed in the fields. Both the 16-year-old city boy who regards high school as "kid stuff" when he can go out and earn good wages and the farm parent who "got along all right without schooling and children don't learn anything useful at school," reflect the failure of the schools to provide a type of education that meets the needs of today's children and young people.

More varied curricula adapted to children of different backgrounds, interests, and capacities, better trained teachers, expanded school guidance services, smaller classes, modern buildings and equipment, would go far toward persuading many of these children and young people to attend school. Such changes, which will require considerably greater expenditures for education than we now make, cannot be achieved in many States without Federal funds.

2. The demands upon the schools have increased greatly, and will continue to increase, as the age at which children enter full-time employment is raised.

At present only 15 States, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin forbid the employment of children under 16 years during school hours, and many of these permit children to leave school at 14 and 15 for work in agriculture and domestic service. In the other 33 States children may leave school at 14 or 15 years for employment if they have completed a specified grade, usually the sixth, seventh, or eighth. Strong efforts are being made to bring the minimum age for school-leaving up to 16 years in all States, and in general, it is safe to say, despite the slowness of State legislatures to act, there is agreement that children under 16 years belong in school rather than in the labor market.

In addition, there is a growing tendency to make school attendance compulsory up to 18 years for boys and girls who are not employed, that is, people are beginning to recognize that boys and girls under 18 years should be either in school or engaged in useful work, not idle. Six States already have such a requirement-Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. This means that, where this requirement is adopted, school enrollments will increase as employment opportunities decrease.

Roughly, 14 years marks the usual age for completion of the elementary course in an eight-grade system. Raising the school-leaving age to 16 years by removing exemptions for employment, and to 18 years for these who are not employed, will mean greatly increased enrollments in the secondary schools. Not only will school teachers and school facilities be required for a much larger number of children, but a different type of education than that now offered will be required, as the Harvard report has pointed out. At present, despite the rapid extension of trade and vocational education, the vast majority of highschool students in this country are taking the traditional academic curriculum, one that was devised primarily to meet college entrance requirements, but the large majority of students now enrolled in high school do not go to college. With the age for entering employment raised by various factors, including legislation, labor-union policy, and scarcity of jobs, there will be ever-increasing numbers of young people in high school who are not primarily book-minded. The need for broadening the curriculum and relating the school program to the future responsibilities of students as workers and as citizens will be imperative if these children are not merely to idle their time away in the classrooms. New types of school programs must be developed and new ideas explored. Such curriculum reorganization will require skilled leadership, skilled and specially trained teachers and guidance counselors. Federal aid for education can help States to meet this need, so that the extra years of schooling available to children will be profitable experience for them instead of a mere marking of time until they can find some kind of job.

Of the four bills providing Federal aid to education before this committee, S. 472, S. 199, S. 170 or S. 81, the National Child Labor Committee favors S. 472, with two suggestions for changes. Its endorsement of S. 472 is in accordance with a statement of principles adopted by its board of trustees after very careful consideration. This statement is attached to this brief.

An analysis of the four bill s before this committee reveals that S. 472 alone conforms to these principles. S. 81 and S. 170 grant funds for teachers salaries only, which the committee believes is an unwise limitation; S. 199 provides, in title II, for funds for nonpublic schools throughout the country, which the National Child Labor Committee considers unwise.

S. 472 is, in the opinion of the National Child Labor Committee, the soundest of the measures before this body. It has two suggestions to make:

First, it favors a larger appropriation.

The initial annual appropriation in S. 472, $150,000,000, is the lowest in any of the bills before this committee. It represents an average of only about $5 per child of school age, 5 to 17 years, inclusive, in the population. Even though distributed on a basis of need, rather than

population, it is utterly inadequate to meet the present crisis or to permit even the beginning of the development of the type of public school, with all that implies in terms of well-trained personnel, adequate equipment, and enriched curriculum, that is essential if we really intend to educate our children. The National Child Labor Committee recognizes that many factors must be taken into consideration and is not suggesting any specific amount for the annual initial appropriation. It believes, however, that the appropriation should be substantially greater than it is, at least double, and that nothing could be wiser investment for the Nation's future.

Second, it wishes to point out that one group of children who suffers the greatest educational disadvantages of any group in this country, might be overlooked under this bill, that is, the children of migratory agricultural workers who travel with their families from State to State for seasonal work on crops.

In some States these children are considered nonresidents and are denied schooling; in some they are not made welcome if they do attend; in most there is little effort to enforce the compulsory-attendance laws for migrant children. Many of them have practically no schooling; few have any continuity in their schooling.

Information on the seriousness of the educational deficiencies of migrant children is abundant. The reports of the Tolan Committee to Investigate the Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, which held hearings a few years ago, is replete with such material. Typical is the story of the family who, after working in Missouri and Arkansas, came to Michigan where five of their six children entered school for the first time, all of them in the first grade.

The National Child Labor Committee has made many studies of the education, or lack of it, of migrant children. It is a shameful picture of neglect and unconcern. One of our studies included a detailed survey of 81 migrant families picking strawberries in Arkansas and Kentucky. We found that 36 percent of the children 7 through 15 years of age had not attended school a single day in the calendar year previous to the study. The average number of days attended by those who had gone to school was 86, a few days over 4 months.

Among the children 12 to 15 years of age, 35 percent had finished only the first or second grade, and only half had completed the fourth grade or higher. A startling fact was that many children who had left school permanently had had less schooling than their parents, and the median grade achieved by the parents was only 4.4. This is all out of line with our usual conception of educational progress in America, where parents are determined that their children shall have a better education than they were able to secure.

The education of migrant children raises difficult problems. They are not a homogeneous group but comprise many groups whose educational needs vary depending on whether they are one-crop migrants with a fixed abode or whether they migrate for several months of the year; whether the period of migration is spent in one or several different communities; the extent to which the period of migrancy coincides with the school term in their place of residence, as well as in the communities where they go for work; the laws and regulations governing school attendance by nonresidents and apportionment of State school funds in the communities where there are migrants; and the attitude of these communities toward the children of migratory

60144-47-pt. 1—8

workers. It follows that there is no one solution, no one system of schools for migrant children can be set up and operated. The problem must be met differently in different areas. But it must be met and experience in a few States, such as California, New Jersey, and Michigan indicates that it can be met. Because so many of these children cross State lines and are temporary residents of a number of States, it is an area of education where Federal help is most appropriate.

We believe, therefore, that it would be desirable to specifically mention in any bill for Federal aid, the children of migratory workers and would suggest that section 7, dealing with State acceptance provisions, be amended to provide that in States where children of migratory workers reside for certain parts of the year, a just and equitable apportionment of such funds shall be provided for the benefit of public schools serving such children.

I would also like to present a statement of principles of the National Child Labor Committee, principles that we believe should govern Federal aid to education.

Believing that every child in the United States, regardless of where he lives, should have access to basic general education of a high standard and to additional educational opportunities in accordance with his interests, capacity, and special needs, the National Child Labor Committee:

1. Reaffirms its support of Federal aid to the States as a necessary step in equalizing educational opportunities for all children in all

:States.

2. Will approve measures providing Federal aid to the States for education only if they specifically set forth:

(a) That the basis on which Federal funds are administered shall respect the principle of State and local control of education and funds shall be expended through State departments of education.

(b) That Federal funds shall be so distributed within the States that children of all population groups share equitably in the funds, and that there be no reduction in State and local funds used for education, nor in the proportion of State and local funds expended for minority groups.

3. Supports the principle that Federal funds shall be used only for public schools, but will not withhold support from a bill which permits the use of Federal funds for nonpublic schools in States which now expend State or local funds for nonpublic schools for purposes authorized in the Federal bill.

4. Endorses S. 472 introduced on January 31, 1947, by Senators Taft, Thomas, Ellender, Hill, Smith, Cooper, Chavez, and Tobey, which embodies these principles.

It is understood that if S. 472 be amended in such a way that it does not conform to the principles set forth in this resolution, the endorsement of the National Child Labor Committee will be reconsidered.

Senator HILL. Mrs. Zimand, I was interested in your statement that you thought the ear-marking of funds for salaries was an unwise provision. Would you care to amplify that a little bit?

Mrs. ZIMAND. Well, we believe that salaries, while at the present moment the greatest need confronting the public schools, the salaries of teachers are only one of the many needs of the public schools, which in many States can be met only through Federal funds. We would rank also as important, salaries for other personnel, especially guidance

and counseling personnel, attendance officers, equipment, the type of curriculum that requires more expenditure than the traditional curriculum.

One thing that we are very much interested in-and we realize that if it is effective, it is an expensive type of education-is the development for these older children who will be flocking into schools as employment opportunities go down, of part-time school and work programs, where they go to school part time and work part time under school auspices. That takes them out of the labor market as full-time workers in competition with adults, but to be successful, that type of program has to be very carefully developed and supervised.

We are looking forward, as we say in our statement of principles, to educational goals in this country that will give our children, all of them, a very different type of education than they have at present, and, as Mr. Hecht says, we see this as one step in the right direction. Senator HILL. Then you recognize that this piece of legislation should be very fundamental education, and, therefore, it should not be restrictive? Isn't that right?

Mrs. ZIMAND. You mean restricted to certain States?

Senator HILL. Not only to certain States, but to certain fields or purposes or goals of education.

Mrs. ZIMAND. We feel it should not be restricted in its purposes. Senator AIKEN. Mrs. Zimand, in your statement you indicated that about three million children of school age are not in school, three million between the ages of 7 and 17.

Mrs. ZIMAND. Yes.

Senator AIKEN. And then, of course, there are others between the ages of 5 and 7 that are not required to attend school. Do you believe that in allocating the funds to the different States, funds should be allocated to the States which do not require those children to be in school on the same ratio as do the States which require a full attendance? In other words, should we pay the States for the 3,000,000 children that are not required to attend school?

Mrs. ZIMAND. Of course, some of these children are required to attend school, but they are not attending school. It would apply primarily to the 14 and 15-some of the 14- and 15-year group-but largely to the 16, and 17-year group.

Senator AIKEN. It would seem to me that if the States received the money on the basis of average daily attendance of children in school, there would be a greater incentive to see that those children are in school and are not out on the streets, or perhaps home working, or working in a shop, quitting school at the age of 14 and beginning to work in a factory, in the States where it is permitted. Is it fair to pay the States for those children that quit school and work outside?

Mrs. ZIMAND. Well, of course, I can see that point too. I believe our feeling would be that, as you have that money available and as you improve your schools, then both your elementary and high schools will have more of them coming into the schools. That is one of the big factors in nonattendance, that there is an incentive for many children to go to school now. A number of studies of the problem have been made. We first stated the thesis in 1920 that we believed children are out of school and working because they did not want to go to school. Senator AIKEN. Aren't there districts in the United States where children are not encouraged to attend school after they reach the age