ment would put up 60 percent. The Federal Government would be doing more under that bill so far as requirements are concerned than the States would be doing.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. As a matter of fact, in many States they are now spending so much more than that, that relatively the Federal Government would not be taking over that proportion of the total expenditure of education.

You do not believe, do you, that New York under this system would reduce its per pupil expenditure below $185?

Senator HILL. I do not know that it would reduce its expenditure, but what it could do is reduce the State contribution by $60.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is what has been done in the case of the land-grant colleges which you have long since supported. You do exactly the same thing with land-grant colleges; you relieve the States of that much expense universally throughout the country.

By the way, I would like to read into the record a resolution passed by the superintendents of schools representing cities of over 200,000 in this country. One was from New Orleans. This was a meeting which was held a week ago in Los Angeles. They considered Federal aid of all kinds and they are very much interested in it.

Senator HILL. What organization did you say?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. These are the superintendents of schools in cities. of over 200,000 in the United States, of which there are 44.

Now, there were about 30 men at this meeting representing those cities. Those cities comprise some 25 or 30 million people. Here is the resolution they passed:

The security of the Nation and its spiritual, cultural, and material well-being in this period of profound readjustment of both the national and the world economy, requires a greatly increased emphasis upon the support of public education.

To achieve these ends, Federal aid to public education has become a necessity. It is the considered opinion of the superintendents of the large cities that the distribution of Federal funds to the several States for the support of public education must be based upon this fundamental principle, namely, that to secure any satisfactory measure of adequacy of educational opportunity a uniform amount of financial support for the education of every school child in each State must be provided by the Federal Government."

And among the southern superintendents who were there was a man from Dallas, Tex., a man from New Orleans, one from St. Louis, and others. I do not remember all of them.

Senator HILL. Well, of course, on the whole the superintendents of cities over 200,000 where you have, on the whole, better educational opportunities, do not need this equalization as in your smaller cities, towns, and in rural communities.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. You could not get the superintendent of schools from Oklahoma City who was there to say that. Two years ago the minimum salary for a teacher in Oklahoma City was $1,000. Senator HILL. That might be true, but that is an exceptional case, is it not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Well, on the other hand

Senator HILL. That is exceptional as far as Oklahoma is concerned Dr. STUDEBAKER. They are strongly in favor of the principle I read. Senator HILL. Of course under S. 199 you disregard any basis of disparity in wealth between the States, do you not?

60114-47 pt. 1- -36

Senator AIKEN. May I interrupt to say that I have some tables here showing percentage of the Federal income tax paid by each State and the percentage of the allocation of school funds under S. 199 which each State would receive. It is very revealing and shows that the wealthy States pay for the cost of this in any case. For instance, Alabama pays 0.65 percent of the income tax of the country but would receive back 2.64 percent of the allocation for the schools; whereas New York pays 21.35 percent of the income tax and would receive back only 7.96 percent of the allocation for the schools. Going further, Mississippi pays only 0.25 percent or one-fourth of 1 percent of the Federal income tax and would receive back 2.23 percent of the allocation for secondary and primary schools. Missouri happens to be exactly almost on the line, so it does not make any difference to Missouri.

Senator DONNELL. Just about right.

Senator AIKEN. Missouri pays 2.75 percent of the Federal income tax and would draw 2.66 percent of the schools' tax.

In other words, you contribute about an equal amount to what you would receive.

(The tables referred to follow:)

Federal income taxes paid and allotment under S. 199 by States

Federal income taxes paid and allotment under S. 199 by States-Continued

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Senator Hill, I have always favored these bills back through the years, so-called equalization bills, and so forth. I think there is a great merit in the general principle of equalization There is this difficulty I have in thinking about such formulas for the long-term: If you change the phraseology and a few of the figures in that bill a bit, then instead of excluding 20 States you exclude 25. Or if you change it a little another way instead of excluding 20 States you would exclude only 15.

Senator HILL. That would be true of any bill.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I still say if we had started out a hundred years ago to build up education we would have universal Federal support of education up to a very satisfactory floor all over the Nation in each local school district. Everybody can understand such a plan. It could be administered equitably and simply. A lot of Federal bureaucrats would not be needed. Such a simple plan would permit every State and the local community to go as far beyond the national floor as they wanted to go.

Again, when we bring boys into the Army, we do not say, let us equalize in terms of the States from which they come.

Senator HILL. But do you not realize the difference there is, that as far as the Army education is concerned the Federal Government has assumed the whole burden and the whole responsibility 100 percent. The Federal Government does the whole thing there, does it not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Suppose the Federal Government does the whole thing up to $150 per pupil in elementary and secondary education, so far as money is concerned. You still would not want them to run the thing, would you?

Senator HILL. No; I certainly would not want them to run it, but I will say this, that as far as I am for Federal aid, as strongly as I am for Federal aid, if you put the Federal Government in a position where they put up most of the money you do rather invite that very thing that all of us want to safeguard against, which is Federal interference of any Federal control.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That depends upon the law you write.

Senator HILL. I realize it may depend upon the law, but after all, when the Federal government begins to put up nearly all the money and assumes a big burden, you see what you spoke of in your testimony. But you go a lot further, as I see it, than anything ever suggested before in my long experience of hearing testimony on this subject and considering bills, of having the Federal Government go into all States on the same basis irrespective of what the wealth or needs of those States may be.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. You are going 50-50 now on vocational education. Senator HILL. Well, but vocational education is a very small thing compared to what we are talking about now, the general education. We stepped up vocational education last year and we thought we made tremendous progress when we stepped it up to about $45,000,000. Senator AIKEN. About $31,000,000.

Senator HILL. Senator Aiken says about $31,000,000. That is certainly not $1,200,000,000, and it may be that it may come to that some day, but I am speaking about it as a practical proposition now, what a tremendous step you propose to take. You are turning this

thing around that we have always conceived that the function of education was the primary responsibility of the State and now you have turned it around to make it the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. If you wanted to, you could pull the $60 down to $40 and the $100 down to $80, and you would reduce that proportion contributed by the Federal Government if you would wish to. Senator HILL. I understand that.

Senator AIKEN. It is not what you want to do; I am talking about what you propose to do.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Those were the figures in the bill.

Senator AIKEN. I think it would be well to have the record show just what this percentage would amount to. Under the compilation under the cost of schools as furnished by the Library of Congress, the cost of schools was around $2,700,000,000. If we add to that the ultimate provided for in S. 199, $1,200,000,000, the total would be about $4,000,000,000, which would not be too much to maintain the schools of this country; that would be roughly between 25 and 30 percent of the cost of the schools being borne by the Federal Government. All the people of the country would be roughly bearing through their Federal Treasury somewhere around 25 to 30 percent of the cost of the schools.

But I want my colleague from Alabama to remember that times have changed and that now the children born in Alabama and Mississippi gravitate to Michigan and California and other States, and that process of gravitation or migration has gone on until now almost 60 percent of all the children born in this country move out of the States where they are born, which emphasizes the national scope of the problem; whereas back 50 years ago the majority of the children stayed in the States where they were born and educated, and if the State did not educate them the State had to bear the penalty.

Senator HILL. And for the very reason stated. That is one of the reasons I am so strong for Federal aid. But my question is whether or not we are prepared and wish to do so and, as a practical matter can do so, to wit, go into these wealthier States with a lot of Federal aid.

Senator AIKEN. But the richer States pay it. We have to pay the bills.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Senator Hill, the general policy that I have always felt should be adopted finally on this matter is more a fiscal policy than what you might call an instructional or educational policy. It would reduce to the simplest terms a method by which to equalize educational opportunity in this country and keep completely out of such legislation any chance of Federal control, and then the Office of Education, as a professional agency engaged in research and consultative service and publications and all the other things that we do, would go about it to do everything possible to put education about education to work, hoping that any idea we have if feasible in a given State would be voluntarily accepted. Everybody in the country should know that they did not have to take any ideas we have.

Now, with that conception, I wonder if you could not write a law that would stick and would keep the Federal Government from trying to control education.