"Whereas the ratio of children of school age to adult population in Alabama is among the highest in the country, while her per capita wealth and income are among the lowest, and

"Whereas Alabama is now spending a high percentage of its available revenue for educational purposes, being recognized as a national leader in her effort to provide adequate educational opportunities for her youth: Be it therefore

"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Alabama (the Senate concurring), That it hereby request the Alabama Representatives in the National Congress to support financial legislation that will provide educational opportunities for Alabama children more nearly equal to those provided children in wealthier States, maintain local initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education, and to reserve explicitly to the States and the local subdivisions the administration of schools; be it further

"Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Member of the Congress from Alabama."

The position of the Alabama Legislature in seeking Federal aid for education is further indicated in title 52, section 61, Code of Alabama, 1940, wherein the State superintendent of education is specifically enjoined to "make special studies presenting the need of public education in Alabama for general Federal aid for the support of the public schools and to make the same available to appropriate Federal agencies."

Alabama's school needs today are crucial. Inadequate salaries, insufficient number of teachers, overcrowded classes, overburdened transportation facilities, minimum building needs-all these conditions must be remedied. While the 1947 legislature, scheduled to convene in May, will undoubtedly increase appropriations to public education materially, such funds will be entirely inadequate to meet the educational needs of the State.

Sincerely yours,

FRANK L. GROVE, Executive Secretary.

In the State of Oregon the principles of Federal aid to education have been widely discussed by representative groups including the American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, the Oregon Congress of Parents and Teachers, and the Oregon Education Association. All of these groups have endorsed the principles of Federal aid to education as contained in S. 472, although many have expressed doubt that the financial support provided for in this measure will be sufficient to give public education the support which it needs.

The representative council of the Oregon Education Association adopted the following resolution on March 30, 1946:

"We reaffirm our faith in the principle of Federal aid to public education without Federal control and urge that Congress enact legislation that will more nearly equalize educational opportunities for all youth."

The Portland branch of the American Association of University Women has adopted the following resolution:

"Since an adequate education for children in the United States must be the concern of all our citizens, and since no matter how great their effort, some States, because of their low per capita income, cannot supply their children with this education, therefore the Portland Chapter of the American Association of University Women strongly endorses the principle of Federal aid to education, so that the resources of all the people can be used to supply an adequate education for all our children. We urge the passage of appropriate Federal legislation to accomplish this purpose" (adopted April 2, 1947).

In the discussions of Federal aid to education only two matters of concern have been expressed:

First. Federal aid should be free from Federal control and must clearly recognize the established responsibility of the State in matters of public education.

Second. Federal aid should be restricted to public schools except in States which have adopted the policy of contributing State funds to nonpublic schools. Respectfully submitted,

JAMES T. HAMILTON,
Federal Legislative Chairman,
Oregon Education Association.

TEACHERS UNION,

New York 3, N. Y., April 28, 1947.

To the House and the Senate Committees on Education,

United States Congress, Washington, D. C.:

Kindly consider this brief on the subject of Federal aid for public school education. I speak for the Teachers Union of New York City, local 555 of the United Public Workers of America, CIO.

During the last decade many volumes of evidence have been presented to Congress on the needs of the schools, on the great disparity of the abilities of the several States to maintain the schools, and on the great inequality in educational opportunities among the children of the Nation, and the vital importance of public education for the defense and the prosperity of the country and for the preservation of our democracy has been set forth most forcefully by leading educators and publicists. At this late date there can be no great doubt as to the urgent need for the Federal Government to exercise its authority and to use its vast resources to bring about a measure of equalization of educational facilities for the children. Even some of the strongest interests that formerly opposed Federal aid for education now agree that there is critical need for it.

Moreover, it is the settled policy of the Federal Government to spend vast sums on many other vital services of national importance, such as on the conservation of the soil, forests, and other natural resources; on flood control, on navigation; on the promotion of agriculture, fisheries, and numerous other enterprises; and on public health. The wisdom of such expenditures is no longer questioned. No one would dare suggest that the nurture and education of the children as a means of conserving our human resources is of less importance. In our American system of democracy education is the birthright of every child.

It is plain that a political bloc has stood in the way of Federal aid to the schools. And it is not the political principle of States' rights that has been the hindrance, for we are a practical people and have not let States' rights stand in the way of vital national interests. For example, the Federal Government spends vast sums on State highways, and we hear no alarm over the danger of Federal control. As a matter of fact we have made our Federal system work exceedingly well with a maximum degree of State and local control over policies that intimately concern the people. We can do that in the field of public education too, if we set our will to it.

We would reach a better understanding and agreement on the issue before us if we would frankly admit that it is the political question growing out of the relation of church and state which has been the block in the way of Federal aid to the schools. Many of us know that this political issue was settled (and I speak for those who think it was wisely settled) in the founding of the Government and in the adoption and the amendments of the 48 State constitutions. But many Americans of this generation seem to be unaware of this, or do not appreciate its importance. Fortunately present-day Americans know little of the contentions, the religious quarrels, and the religious persecutions that preceded the adoption of the principle of separation of church and state.

It is good that the United States Supreme Court has recently clarified this issue for us. In the case coming up from New Jersey courts, which involved the payment out of public funds the bus fares of children attending parochial schools (Everson v. Board of Education, Feb. 10, 1947), the Court explained thoroughly the meaning and the intent of the first amendment of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." To do this all three of the Justices that expressed an opinion in the case, Justices Black, Jackson, and Rutledge, went exhaustively into the history of the issues that led to the adoption of the amendment. It is incumbent on all who assay to express an opinion on the wisdom or the constitutionality of the separation of church and state to read the opinions of these three Justices. It is to be noted that even Justice Black, who delivered the majority opinion upholding the payment of bus fares of parochial school children, said that its payment out of public funds was on the verge of unconstitutionality. Four of the Justices thought it overstepped the bounds and was illegal. There was a divided opinion on this narrow point (5 to 4), but there was unity and clarity of the Court on the unconstitutionality of the use of public funds for the support of sectarian education. It was in agreement, too, that since the adoption of the Fourteenth amendment the first amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights are binding

60144-47-pt. 1—37

upon all the States. So if there are any who hope to change the American principle of separation of church and state they have a very fundamental change to make in the constitutional law of the land

The Court, both majority and minority, made it plain that the separation of church and state is infinitely more than a mere shibboleth of the American people, as some of the ecclesiastics have declared. The founders of the Government were intent on entirely separating civil authority from religious activities. They did this deliberately to prevent the tyranny of civil authority in forcing religious observances upon citizens against their will and to prevent ecclesiastical authority from interfering with governmental policies.

Jefferson and Madison who initiated the separation of church and state regarded religious freedom as the very core of civil liberty in general. They and the other founders aimed to establish more than mere toleration for the various sects. They established religious equality for all of the people. To them and to Americans generally religious freedom meant not only freedom to worship as one's own conscience dictates and the freedom to propagate one's faith but it also meant that the civil authority, or any other authority, could not impose any dogma or creed or any religious ceremonies upon the people.

Proof that the first amendment expressed the will of the American people lies in the fact that the States gradually over a period of years incorporated the same principle into their respective constitutions. This meant the depriving of some sects of special privileges which they had enjoyed in certain States. Now every one of the State constitutions guarantees religious freedom and nearly all of them forbid the use of tax funds for the support of religious institutions. Even greater proof of living force of the first amendment is the more than a hundred years of established policies and usages in conformity with its provisions. No other principle of our Government is more firmly established in the lives of the people.

But we now hear loud and bitter complaints of the hardship and the injustice of denying the appropriation of public funds to parochial schools. Undoubtedly a hardship is felt, but it is not inherent in the constitutional provision for religious liberty and equality. The hardship grows out of the conflict of desires of the various elements in our population in regard to religious observances. The best that the civil authority can do is to observe a strict neutrality in regard to these conflicting desires and to accord as nearly equal treatment to all as is possible. Certainly the burden of supporting parochial schools is no greater for one sect than for another in proportion to their respective numbers. And, as Justice Jackson pointed out in his opinion, the same law that denies the use of tax funds for religious establishments also guarantees equality and freedom to all religious sects. Certainly parochial schools of all sects have flourished well in this country, and have been freer from interference from civil authorities than in almost any other country that could be named.

A present-day problem grows out of the fact that a modern school renders services to children that are not directly related to education, free lunches, health services, transportation, and so on." But there is an insuperable difficulty in drawing the line of demarkation between services that are educational and those that are not, and between services that are related to religious education and those related only to secular education. For example, in an attempt to supply biology textbooks to children civil authorities may well find that a text that describes the theory of evolution is considered an antireligious book by some. This problem is further complicated by the fact that there is manifested a keen disposition to exploit "services" for children in order to obtain substantial sums of tax funds to help maintain parochial schools. Mr. Justice Rutledge in his opinion in the Everson case said that he regarded the Louisiana textbook case as possibly the first breach in the wall of separation of church and state, and that the bus fare case was definitely a breach in it; and he warned that there would undoubtedly be a third and other breaches in it attempted.

Already there is in the Senate a bill. S. 199, which would appropriate $60,000,000, for services, a proportionate share of which is made available to nonpublic tax-exempt schools for transportation, health services, and nonreligious equipment and instructional supplies and books (title II. sections 201, 202, 203). The clause is flexible enough to include almost any supplies and equipment except catechisms and prayer books. If public funds can be used to buy all kinds of equipment except a medicum of religious articles, where does the support of religious institutions begin? As a matter of fact some sects are exceedingly lous of any services that contribute to the nurture of children and show a keen

sectarian interest in them. The care of children is one means of propagating the faith.

The intensity of the desire to breach the wall of separation of church and state is exhibited in the bill S. 199, title II, section 202, which provides that in the distribution of funds for services the Federal Government shall make the payments directly to the schools in States where State laws prevent the distribution of funds to religious institutions. Such a procedure would be a flagrant misuse of Federal power.

I would remind you that while Congress prolongs these discussions about the boundary between civil and ecclesiastical authority and about what the educational needs are, millions of children suffer from the lack of great educational opportunities that this nation could give them. Children have a way of growing up rapidly. While their elders dispute over their intellectual and spiritual welfare they grow up in relative ignorance. Many thousands of them are not in school at all because of the lack of teachers and school facilities. This is a disgrace to a nation so powerful, so enlightened, and so wealthy as the United States.

I know I express the wish of millions of organized working people when I urge you to action on this most vital need of our times. A representative of labor before the Senate Committee on Education the other day said the Federal Government should be spending a billion dollars a year on the schools. That is not an

extravagant sum to mention in view of the need of the children and the wealth of the Nation. But the teachers whom I represent, and I am sure the vast majority of the teachers of the country, would prefer the more modest sums mentioned in bills S. 472 and H. R. 2953 with guarantees that the great principle of religious freedom and equality will not be violated than billions without such guarantees, Respectfully submitted, CHARLES J. HENDLEY, Representing, The Teachers Union, Local 555, UPW-CIO.

TENNESSEE'S EDUCATIONAL CRISIS, SUBMITTED BY A. D. HOLT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, TENNESSEE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION TO THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Following are conditions existing in Tennessee's schools at the present time:

TEACHER TURN-OVER

Fifty thousand different teachers have filled Tennessee's 20,000 teaching positions in the past 5 years. Dozens of classrooms have had two, four, six, and even eight different teachers in the course of 1 year. Six of every ten high-school teachers now employed were not in their present positions 5 years ago.

Only 33 of the State's 95 county superintendents were in their present positions in 1940.

TRAINING OF TEACHERS

The average training of Tennessee's county elementary school teachers dropped from approximately 3 years of college training in 1941-42 to approximately 1% years of college training. There are five times as many teachers now with less than 1 year of college training than there were in 1941-42. Approximately 700 teachers employed in Tennessee's schools this year had not graduated from high school. Many of them had barely graduated from elementary school. Five thousand of Tennessee's teachers this year were granted temporary permits to teach because they had inadequate training to secure a teacher's certificate.

OUTLOOK FOR NEW TEACHERS

Of Tennessee's 30,000 students enrolled in 36 public and private institutions of higher learning, only 499 have expressed their intention to secure elementary school teaching certificates this year. Over 5,000 are needed to fill our vacancies.

A recent survey of 50 rural counties indicated that only 70 high-school graduates of 1946 are now in college preparing to teach. Ninety percent of a group of highschool seniors recently interrogated gave inadequate pay as their reason for failure to choose teaching as their profession.

TEACHERS' SALARIES

The average salary of all teachers and school administrators in Tennessee this year is approximately $1,300. The average for county elementary teachers, who compose half of the State's teaching staff, is $950. Dozens of teachers in the State have incomes of less than $700 per year.

RECENT INCREASE IN STATE'S SCHOOL APPROPRIATIONS

The 1947 legislature recently enacted legislation which will substantially increase the State's appropriations for all phases of public education. However, these increases will bring the State's average school expenditures per student to approximately $90 per year, whereas the average for the Nation will approximate $125. The average salary of Tennessee's teachers next year will probably be $1,650, whereas in at least six States the minimum for qualified teachers will be $2,400. Funds for supervision, transportation, health education, teaching supplies, etc., although increased, will still be woefully inadequate for a satisfactory program of education.

TENNESSEE'S FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS

With the recent enactment of a 2 percent retail tax, Tennessee has practically exhausted its potential sources of increased State revenue for schools. On the basis of any index which may be used, Tennessee will rate around the top of the list of States in financial effort to support its public schools. At the same time, it still rates around the bottom of the list of States in the amount actually spent per student on public education.

SOLUTION OF THE SITUATION

Because of Tennessee's unusual educational burden and its financial limitations. the only hope for an adequate program of education in Tennessee lies in Federal aid to education, such as is provided in S. 472.

The Tennessee Education Association heartily endorses S. 472 and urges its early enactment into law.

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN

PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Allentown, Pa., April 25, 1947.

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Education,

Washington 25, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. AIKEN: It is my wish in this communication to inform you that the Pennsylvania State Education Association with a membership of 54,000 teachers and administrators approves and urges the passage by the Federal Congress of S. 472, which provides for assistance to the States for public education. In urging the enactment of this measure may we point out that we strongly urge there be retained in it a minimum of Federal control.

The association of which I am president is greatly concerned with the inequity of educational opportunity among the different States of the Uuion, the absence of public educational opportunities for children in some sections of the United States, and the low level of educational opportunity that prevails in certain areas of even our wealthiest States.

We believe that the children of America are its greatest resource, that America can continue to be great only as these human resources come to their full development, and that material and military defense, no matter how effective, will fail unless bolstered and supported by citizens who through education are prepared well to act their part in maintaining the freedom and power inherent in our representative form of government.

Very sincerely yours,

FRED W. HOSLER, President.