There is not a vestige of control of the land-grant colleges and, while you may say there is not much money involved, I think that is not the real test of the possibility of control. Now, maybe you have in mind that if Congress appropriated a considerable proportion of the money for a given function to be operated by the States, that finally Congress then would amend the laws and provide for control. I do not know. But as far as the administration of such a law is concerned, I think it would get into a routine and money would be passed out and then we would go to work on education instead of administration of technicality as in a law that does involve a lot of control. Senator AIKEN. Anything further? Senator HILL. Of course, Doctor, too, just one final thought. As you say in your own direct statement, what you propose here is not only Federal aid to help the needy; what it amounts to really is a readjustment of your tax systems in this country. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I operated a local school system for a long time and I can testify from personal experience over more than a decade that one of the real draw-backs to the development of public education was the fact that such a large proportion of the cost of it had to be borne by taxes. I doubt if the State of New York would spend $185 plus $60. New York would have a perfectly fine American decision to make: What shall we do with out assets, some of which come from the Federal Government? And then I think they would offset a certain amount of their local taxes on real estate with this Federal grant. They might push the total expenditure per pupil up to $190 or $195 or $200, and offset real estate taxes with the remainder of the grant. But that is going on all the time. That is all I meant. Senator HILL. They would lessen their effort as far as education is concerned. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Except this: Their effort involves in their contribution to the Federal Treasury. I have never seen any economist yet work out exactly the relationship between this process by which taxes are collected from the State by the Federal Government and some other device by which in terms of economics portions of the collected revenue are sent back to the States. But I know this: That if on equal terms you tax the wealth of all the States according to the best and most equitable taxation you invent here in the Federal Government, we all accept that-and No. 2, if you then turn around and send that money back to the States in terms of the purpose for which it is intended, namely, the education of individual pupils, we also understand that. There are some people who believe that in these systems of so-called equalization there is a sort of double taxation there that they do not exactly like and for that reason I assume that some of the States do not go along on such measures. You know better about that than I do, because you are here where you feel the pressures. Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Dr. Studebaker. The committee has heard in the last 2 weeks a few more than 50 witnesses on this question. In view of the fact, that by deciding to meet at 11 o'clock instead of 12 the Senate has upset the schedule, the Chair thinks we have done very well to conclude hearings only 1 day later than was scheduled. It has been called to our attention that Mr. Franklin T. Miles, of Washington, D. C., wished to testify for a few minutes. However, our time has been used up. The committee would be glad to have Mr. Miles submit any statement which he has prepared and if we could have copies made for each member of the committee I am sure they would be interested in it. However, it does not seem feasible to start hearing another witness at this time and I am sure Mr. Miles will understand. It was only about 2 hours ago that we realized that he desired to testify. Senator HILL. Was Mr. Miles going to talk about the Everson case? Mr. MILES. No. (Laughter.) Senator AIKEN. The committee will now consider the hearings closed except for such material as may be presented to us for incorporation in the record. I am sorry, Mr. Miles, that we did not get around to hearing you this morning, but we will consider your state ment. (Mr. Miles submitted the following brief:) STATEMENT BY FRANKLIN T. MILES, WASHINGTON, D. C. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to present my personal views as an individual and as a parent sincerely interested in the educational welfare of our children in the public schools. So much has been said for and against Federal aid to education that more stress on the reasons against such legislation would be superfluous. While I am definitely opposed to any and all forms of Federal dole and, in particular, to tax money collected from our people in the several States being used to set up a bureaucratic demagog over all education, my opposition is for reasons which have not been touched upon by anyone so far in these hearings. First, let us define these terms, to see if we mean the same things. To my mind "Federal aid" is only tax money collected from people in the States. "Education" in terms of this legislation means only formal, prescribed courses of study in our various public schools. If we are agreed on that, then let us see where such definitions would lead. We find that the phrase "Federal aid to education" actually means "tax money collected from people in the States being used to help every child study formal, prescribed courses of study in our schools." Are the present formal, prescribed courses of study in our schools sufficiently adequate and desirable to deserve the risk and hazard presented by this legislation of centralized control of our entire educational system? Just this past Wednesday, the United States Chamber of Commerce, during a discussion of this question here at the Statler Hotel, heard the Honorable Gov. Kim Sigler, of Michigan, make a remarkably fine address. Among other surprising facts the governor stated he also said he was amazed at the lack of comprehension and understanding by high-school graduates of the ordinary governmental functions of the various political bodies. The governor further stated that these high-school graduates, ready to go out into the world and make their living should have been much better prepared, and he suggested adding two more years to the present high-school course to achieve this purpose. It seemed odd to me then that the Governor of Michigan did not suggest a direct investigation into our public schools to find out just what is being taught, if anything. Unless the teaching methods and subjects taught are strengthened to the point of making them worth while in their results, the plan of adding two additional years to an admittedly weak course of study can only serve to further extend the futile farce of modern "progressive" education. This same objection is likewise true of the plan proposed by this legislation to dump tax money collected from people in the States into the admittedly weak and insufficient courses of study found in all public schools clinging to the so-called progressive education with its social studies and social sciences. Therefore, the thought I wish to leave with you is that we should first, on a local, community, or State level, look into our schools and see what is being taught and the results of such teaching. If and when we find the results of such teaching entirely satisfactory, then we would be in position to work for an equal opportunity for all children to benefit by such satisfactory schooling. If, how ever, we find that subversive elements are at work in our public schools to undermine our system of economy and form of government, then this legislation should not be in any way seriously considered until we can assure our children a worthwhile American education in our public schools. In conclusion, let me express my appreciation for the courtesy extended me by this committee through the subcommittee composed of such fine, sincere statesmen as you gentlemen have shown yourselves to be. And let me state also my earnest hope that this Congress will never seriously consider this kind of legislation until they are certain that our public schools are capable of offering to every child in America a truly worth-while and absolutely American education. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.) APPENDIX Senator ROBERT A. TAFT, THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Young Women's Christian Association has had a long and consistent concern for the reducing of inequalities of educational opportunity. In their work with thousands of young women and girls they are constantly aware of the varying degree of efficiency in the educational system of the United States. Through contact with girls in elementary and secondary schools they observe the discrepancies in expenditure between different States, the lowness of salaries in many, the increasing shortage of teachers, and the unevenness in curricula. At the triennial convention held in Atlantic City in March 1946 the following item in the YWCA public affairs program was adopted: "Recognizing that the welfare of our Nation is largely dependent upon the intellectual integrity of its citizens, "We affirm our belief in equal educational opportunity for all people of the United States and will support legislation to bring this about. "We will work for the improvement of educational standards in relation to teacher training, salaries, and curricula." If the children of today who will become the citizens of the postwar world are to meet the many problems of the latter, legislation must be adopted. Recent events, notably the fact that the education of 1,704,000 men in the selective service was below the minimum required for induction into the armed services has made plain that boys and girls in many communities do not get the equipment necessary to enable them to function as enlightened and alert citizens when they reach adulthood. One section of one of the bills, S. 472 now under consideration concerns the National Board, viz., section 6b-"Provided, That the funds paid to a State under this act shall be expended only by public agencies and under public control, except that in any State in which funds derived from State or local revenues are disbursed to non-public-educational institutions for expenditure for any of the purposes for which funds paid to such State may be disbursed to and expended by such institutions for such purposes." The National Board of the YWCA believes that the basis of American democracy lies in our public education system. In a democracy the responsibility of the State is to provide education for its citizens in public schools open to everyone on the same basis. The Board believes it is not the responsibility of the State to support other than public schools. The YWCA would therefore like to see section 6b deleted and with this deletion would support S. 472 believing that it would be a first step toward greater educational opportunity in this country. Very sincerely yours, Mrs. ARTHUR FORREST ANDERSON, President. THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: Educators and many lay citizens of South Carolina are deeply concerned over the prospects of enacting into law the Federal-aid-toeducation bill. S. 472. It is with such hopes that I am writing to you in connection with S. 472. I would be very grateful to you if you would have the following statement concerning S. 472 incorporated in and made a part of the printed hearings on the said bill. South Carolina is in most urgent need of Federal aid to education. When we face realistically such facts as: There are 590 children per every 1,000 adults to be educated in South Carolina as compared with 280 for California and 388 for the United States as a whole. that South Carolina has an income of only $950 behind each child 5 to 17 years of age compared with $5,130 for Nevada and an average of $2,534 for the United States, and that the average income in South Carolina was $576 compared with the national average of $1,031 for 1943, it is very evident that it is impossible for South Carolina to furnish educational opportunities for its youth equal to those found in the wealthier States. South Carolina exerts much greater financial effort to support its school system than the majority of States, yet its actual expenditures for education are very low in comparison with what they should be. If we, in this great country of ours, are to make any noticeable progress in the eradication of ignorance and poverty, then we must offer more equitable educational opportunities to the youth of the Nation. South Carolina's Governor, J. Strom Thurmond, in his inaugural address on January 21, 1947, had the following to say in reference to Federal aid for public education: "I favor Federal aid for public education, with the understanding that such aid should be without Federal control and the State public-school system remain entirely under the control of the State. It is a disturbing fact that if we in South Carolina spend all our public revenue for the support of education, we should still not be able to give our children the advantages enjoyed by children in many other States. South Carolina has the greatest percentage of children of school age of all the States in the United States, and since the children of one State may become citizens of another State, it is appropriate that their education be financed by taxpayers everywhere. The Federal Government has been providing assistance to education since 1862, when grants were made for the establishment of agricultural colleges, and increasingly since that time large appropriations have been made for the support of some specific form of education such as agriculture, home economics, trade and industrial, and vocational rehabilitation. It is illogical to oppose Federal aid for education and at the same time advocate Federal aid for road construction and other purposes. The fear of Federal aid to education is without foundation, for we shall have more Federal control without it than with it, because the effect of Federal court decisions requiring equalization as between the races will cost the State much more money and consequently lower the quality of the total school program unless aid is received from Federal resources." Very sincerely yours, J. M. CHERRY, Denver, Colo., May 9, 1947. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Education, Senate Office Building. May I present the following statement in the hope that it may be included in the record of proceedings for the hearings on Federal aid for education? "The Colorado Education Association, the official spokesman for the teachers of Colorado, has repeatedly passed resolutions in support of Federal aid for public education. This support is growing in intensity not only from teachers but from a majority of the citizens who are becoming alarmed with the serious threats to their childrens future welfare. "It is not our purpose to again fill the proceedings with data and arguments showing the need for this legislation, but we do want to make a brief statement for the record. "We believe that (1) the passage of S. 472 would be one of the most significant steps forward ever taken by any Congress (2) the passage of S. 472 would be the soundest investment ever made by Congress and would be our best insurance in the maintenance of a high National income and general prosperity. |