Some districts with high per capital income have been able to pretty well come abreast of their classroom requirements. Unfortunately, some of the districts where the need is greatest have been unable to meet it because the tax base just did not exist.

The Murray-Metcalf distribution formula gets at this problem by dividing funds among the States on the basis of school-age population and within the individual States to school districts "which in terms of the economic resources available to them are least able to finance the cost of needed school facilities." The Javits bill's distribution formula takes account of both school-age population in each State and the income per child of school age in each State. Within each State, it provides for distribution to districts on the basis of financial resources, effort, and urgency of need as measured by overcrowding and use of unsafe and obsolete facilities.

TEACHER SALARIES

The Murray-Metcalf and Javits bills go also to the question of teacher salaries. Once again, the documentation of the need for salary supplementation is ample and I will not burden you with more of it. You know that the average teacher makes less than $4,800 a year, with a median salary much lower, in spite of long and costly professsional training that must be continued year after year. You know how many teachers leave after a year or two of teaching solely in order to make a decent living. You know that responsible and respected educators-the latest was Robert M. Hutchins of the Fund for the Republic-have advocated doubling teacher salaries and were not relegated to the lunatic fringe for such proposals. This is a measure of the distance there is to go in raising teacher salaries. Neither of these bills proposes specific salary scales or increases, and no conceivable expenditure under either could reach more than a small fraction of the amount needed. Both relate Federal grants to the effort being made by the States and encourage distribution within the State partly on the basis of effort as well as need.

It is idle to talk to the need for improvement in education when teacher salaries stand at their present level. No amount of classroom space can ever do more than provide the physical environment for learning. The teacher is the onethe only one-who can make the learning process meaningful. How do we rate the teacher's contribution?

Here the values of our society are laid bare for all to see. Do we value education as we say we do? Or is it just on a par with alcohol, tobacco, and advertising, as our expenditures in recent years would seem to indicate? The Federal Government must raise its voice on this question now.

States and communities, as they always have, will come along and carry by far the heaviest part of the load. But action by the Federal Government to supplement salaries will give a clear lead in this important area. It will build the morale of teachers and will make them realize that their Government in Washington places their living standards at least on a par with test tubes and Bunsen burners.

SCHOLARSHIPS

The third area I want to talk about is scholarships. In the administration scheme of things, they are suffering from the "second-year slump." Two years ago the administration proposed school construction; last year it proposed nothing. Last year it proposed scholarships-at least as a talking point. This year, silence.

If there is any area in which most proposals have been halfhearted and inadequate, it is in this area of scholarship aid for higher education. Many tears have been shed in recent years for the neglect of the gifted child, that 2 or 3 percent up near the genius level. Certainly we should see that these children have ample opportunity to work up to their capacities. But what kind of misplaced concern is it that worries over lost opportunities for a handful of children in primary and secondary school and looks away when each year as many as 100,000 high school graduates in the upper 25 percent of their high school classes cannot go on to college for financial reasons? And there is an equivalent number of equally talented students who drop out of high school each year for reasons that are certainly at least partly financial. This is an irretrievable loss of valuable gifts on a scale that is truly shocking.

* Studies reported by U.S. Office of Education, January 1958.

We should be talking about a plan for an education bill of rights that insures that no child who is intellectually able and who is willing to study shall have his higher education denied or interrupted because of the income of his parents. We should be establishing the principle that ability, and not ability to pay, shall be the passport to educational opportunity.

The major breakthroughs in education in this country came with free and public elementary education in the first half of the 19th century and with compulsory attendance into high school later in that century. The labor movement played a role in both of these major accomplishments. We say now that it is time for another breakthrough; that our society should now assume responsibility for educating our young people as far as their gifts will carry them.

Why should it be assumed that public responsibility for education stops with age 16 or 17? We were glad to hear President Eisenhower encourage study and development of junior colleges, which will enable many students to take advantage of higher education without incurring high away-from-home living costs. Beyond the high school, opportunity which really means something must go further than the provision of State universities. It must encompass more technical schools, junior colleges, and community colleges, and it must provide cash scholarships for the most able of those students who must continue their studies away from home.

Loans have been put forward as a solution of the problem. The present loan provisions of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 provide up to $1,000 a year in loans, with interest to start after graduation. To those who have studied the figures on income of college graduates compared with income of high school graduates, this might look like a good investment.

But how does it look to an able high school senior who would like to go to college put is wavering because of pressure from home to contribute something to the family's support or at least to become self-supporting? He must look forward, at this critical juncture in his life, to 4 years without substantial steady income and an indebtedness at the end of that time of $4,000. A recent Ford Foundation study estimated higher education costs at $1,500 a year at public colleges and $2,000 at private colleges, so even with some income he would need the full sum of the loan. For the children of most industrial workers, no matter how able, costs like this make higher education virtually impossible.

It should be obvious that many topnotch students, out of a sense of family obligation, will not put this kind of a mortgage on their future income. The loss is not merely theirs; it is a loss to American society of the kind that cannot be made up.

Scholarships should be the first line of defense against this siphoning off of undeveloped talent, with loans as a secondary line of defense. The Humphrey bill would start with 46,000 scholarships of $1,000 and would increase in the fourth year to a maximum of 184,000 of $1,000 each. This bill is the first one that deals with this problem on the scale it deserves.

It is AFL-CIO policy that scholarship aid should not be limited to science, language, and mathematics, or to any specialized field, and we would like to reaffirm our support for this position. Education in social science and the humanities is every bit as important as physical science to the full and good life, and the temporary upsurge of interest in technology should not obscure this fundamental fact. Some of the scholarship bills propose limiting awards to special fields, and while supporting the scholarship idea, we would oppose the limiting clauses.

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL

We would like to say a few words about the administration school bill. This is the bill that was almost kept home from school by its parents, who obviously let it out with great reluctance. It was tardy when it arrived, and I am sure when the teacher looked at it, she sent it to the foot of the class.

The best thing that can be said about the bill is that it is useless. The worst thing that can be said is that it is a deliberate diversionary tactic to take your eyes off the main problems of education. It was billed in the press before it even appeared as an attempt to get a bill, any kind of bill, to forestall the other known pieces of legislation that dealt straightforwardly with construction, salaries, and scholarships. It was put in on the theory that “you can't beat something with nothing," but it is about as close to nothing as you can get.

Let's look at this shabby and unworthy bill. Take the question of construction of primary and secondary schools. If a school district could prove a need for new classrooms, it could float a bond issue, and the State and Federal Governments

jointly would provide the funds for both debt service and amortization beyond what the school district could finance. But is this a grant on the part of the Federal Government or is it a loan? The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who had the unenviable task of explaining the bill to this subcommittee, was quoted in the New York Times as saying he was confident that "many of these districts will never repay anything." Is this saying that he is confident that the school districts will not honor their obligations, or that no obligation really exists?

In either case, the whole approach lacks integrity. It scarcely promotes civic honesty to say, with a broad wink, "Here's a loan, boys, but we are confident that you will not repay." But we probably have already paid more attention to this proposal than it deserves.

If this kind of Federal support is wanted, the Javits bill, in its titles II and III, does the job directly and with infinitely less confusion.

OTHER PROBLEMS FOR STUDY

In saying that these basic problems of school construction, teacher salaries, and opportunity for higher education do not need further study before action is taken, we do not mean to imply that we know all we need to know about all of our educational problems. By no means is this true. There are other facets of education that need continuous and intensive study. We will point to some of these in a minute.

But first we think it needs to be stated without reservation that our system of free public education represents the most magnificent attempt at large-scale democratic education in the world's history and needs no apologies from anyone. Particularly, we owe a debt of gratitude to those teachers and administrators who have labored so hard and so well to sustain this system-all the while they have been subjected to a running fire of criticism from those who in the guise of pursuing "quality" in education would establish a narrow elite in the Nation. Crticism we should welcome, provided that it recognizes our basic democratic goal of education for all as far as their gifts will carry them.

It is significant that President Emeritus Conant, of Harvard, in his study of secondary school education, concluded that the system is basically sound and needs changes only in matters of detail. And in the course of his study, he learned to respect vocational education which in his liberal ivory tower he had been conditioned to disdain.

Yes, there are matters that need improvement and well-directed studies will point the way to these improvements. The curriculm needs to be studied to see that it is up to the heightened demands made upon it today. The teachertraining institutions need constant upgrading to meet the demands upon them. Particularly in the area of school financing some fresh approaches are indicated. Many communities are groaning under a tax system which relies disproportionately on real property taxes in a day when real wealth is so frequently held in other forms. Such a system carries the financial burden over to retired persons who own their homes but whose incomes have declined drastically.

Perhaps we need to redefine a "community" for educational purposes. We have recently seen how Governors Ribicoff, Rockefeller, and Meyner met with Mayor Wagner to discuss problems common to their separate political jurisdictions. In education, we have seen numerous examples of the well off fleeing to suburban sanctuaries where they buy better public education for their children and shirk their financial obligation to the large metropolitan community whose economic organization provides the source of their income. An obsessive preoccupation with "local responsibility," narrowly defined, overlooks these other, equally compelling responsibilities.

None of these problems can be solved in a day; indeed by their very nature they will never be fully laid to rest. But we must strive constantly to meet them, or else admit that our society is incapable of the effort needed to sustain it.

Meanwhile, you have it in your power to move positively toward a solution of immediate, pressing demands on our educational system. Build classrooms, raise teacher salaries, offer scholarships to the able, and look to tomorrow's problems. This is the stuff of which progress is made.

Mr. BAILEY. Three days of this week's hearings have been set aside for the express purpose of hearing members of Congress. These individuals represent Members of Congress who have introduced legislation or who are vitally interested in the legislation now pending before the committee.

Today's schedule includes the Honorable John R. Foley, of Maryland; the Honorable John F. Baldwin, of California; the Honorable George P. Miller, of California; the Honorable Charles E. Bennett, of Florida; the Honorable Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin.

I note in the committee room the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Foley.

Will you please come forward and identify yourself to the reporter and proceed with your testimony, Mr. Foley.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

I am John R. Foley, Congressman from the Sixth District of Maryland.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am privileged to appear before you today in support of H.R. 22 and the companion bills to provide financial assistance for the support of public schools by appropriating funds to the States to be used for constructing school facilities and for teacher salaries.

As an indication of my strong support for the Murray-Metcalf bill, I introduced a companion measure which bears the number H.R. 2761.

Though I am privileged to appear before this committee today, I cannot say that I am happy to appear before the committee in support of this measure. I am not happy because I feel that it should not be at this late date essential for this committee, for the House of Representatives, nor the Congress, to be still acquiring evidence to demonstrate the urgent, pressing need for Federal assistance to our public schools, both from the standpoint of construction of needed classrooms and for assistance to increasing teachers' salaries.

The pressing need has been evidence for many years past.

It is my profound hope that the 86th Congress in this session will enact this long overdue legislation.

The need for Federal assistance to the States in the construction of classrooms has been apparent for a number of years. The recognition antedates the White House Conference on Education held in 1955.

For the sole purpose of updating the facts on the classroom needs in the State of Maryland, I wish to invite the committee's attention to page 145 of the Congressional Quarterly for the week ending January 30, 1959.

The committee will find set out there that during the period 1958 to 1959, there will be a total shortage of 3,421 classrooms in the State of Maryland.

Last year the shortage was 3,218 and the previous year, 3,150.

Thus, in the State of Maryland, the classroom shortage has continued to increase in each of the past 3 years, and the increased need

has been in both categories, replacing old classrooms and building new classrooms for excess enrollment.

One of the most dynamic counties in the whole State of Maryland, in fact, the whole country, is my home county, Montgomery County. The 1959-60 budget requests of the Board of Education of Montgomery County reveal on pages 505 and following, the additional elementary classrooms needed in the current and subsequent fiscal years are as follows: 1959-60, 119; 1960-61, 123; 1961-62, 92; 1962–63, 80; 1963–

64, 79.

The total cost for these classrooms for the 5 years is estimated at $27,855,680.

Also in Montgomery County it is estimated that secondary classrooms will be needed as follows: 1959-60, 128; 1960–61, 136; 1961–62, 160; 1962-63, 120; 1963-64, 80.

The total estimated cost for these secondary classrooms is $40,752,840, or a total of all classrooms of $68,608,520.

Other anticipated capital school needs in Montgomery County, including a new administration building and expansion of the junior college facilities costing $6,459,550, for a grand total estimated cost for the next 5 years of $75,068,070.

Montgomery County is one of the foremost counties in the whole United States where the citizens have an aggressive, highly education conscious attitude and a willingness to tax themselves the additional amounts necessary to insure basic school facilities for the children of the county. They are bending and expending every effort to meet the anticipated public school needs.

This attitude is not a provincial one on behalf of the Montgomery County citizens. They are as much interested in the educational facilities and standards of the whole State of Maryland and of the whole of the United States as they are in Montgomery County.

The same attitude is true of the citizens of Frederick, Washington County, Allegany and Garrett Counties. These five counties make up the Sixth District of Maryland, which I am honored to represent in the United States House of Representatives.

Washington County has been a pioneer, through the generations, in new approaches and new techniques in public school education. The most recent example is in the use of television in classrooms. The first county in the United States to do so.

Thus, I can safely say that I represent a congressional district made up of citizens who demand the best in educational facilities and desire the highest standards in school instruction as well as school construction.

I am happy to report that in my judgment, most of the citizens of the Sixth District of Maryland strongly support the measures set forth in the Murray-Metcalf bill. Thus, I can speak with conviction today when I say that this forward-looking program, long overdue, has a great base of public support in the Sixth District of Maryland. What has just come into prominence in recent years is the recognition that the States also need assistance in increasing the salaries to public schoolteachers.

I would like to invite the committee's attention for a few moments to a revealing report contained in the April 19, 1958, issue of Business Week. This report is entitled "The Real Trouble With U.S. Education."