Mr. BAILEY. You do not agree, then, that where it says the Federal Government shall look after the national welfare that that includes schools? That is not a part of the welfare?

Mr. HILL. I do not believe there was ever any intent for the term general welfare to include education.

On the other hand, I concede that everything under the sun that is considered good could be brought under the general welfare clause because it is in the general welfare.

Mr. BAILEY. I think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They wanted the common people to have a break.

Mr. HILL. In that case they didn't need the other provisions of the Constitution, just a general welfare constitution.

The State constitution in many respects is similar to the Federal, but they clearly point out the responsibility of the State for education. That was not done in the Federal Constitution. They knew about education then and they could have included that section and I feel that they would have.

Mr. BAILEY. Well, I will have to inform the gentleman that we have given him now considerably more than an hour. Since we have other witnesses I am going to have to say to you that, by the way, the Chair will accept your full statement for publication in the record if there is no objection.

Mr. HILL. Good. We appreciate it.

I would just like to say, in case you might not have seen it, a list of the members and regional chambers endorsing this statement appear on the last page. You have probably seen that already.

Mr. BAILEY. I think maybe that can go along with it. We have no objection to anybody stating their support or opposition to legislation. Mr. HILL. We do not want to make it appear that we are representing

Mr. BAILEY. I was just a little curious. I did not ask to ascertain whether you were representing our West Virginia chamber..

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; we do not want to appear to represent any chamber that has not specifically authorized us to do so.

Mr. BAILEY. I am sorry, the time has run out, because I would have liked to have a little issue on some things in West Virginia.

Mr. HILL. Well, I think we would have both enjoyed it, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, sir.

(The formal statement of Dr. Hill is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. W. W. HILL, JR., ON BEHALF OF MEMBER STATE CHAMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ON THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

My name is W. W. Hill, Jr. My home address is 4142 Norrose Drive, in Indianapolis, Ind. I am director of educational research for the College Life Insurance Co. of America.

I appear here on behalf of the member State and regional chambers of commerce which are listed on the last page of this statement.

Most of my life has been devoted to public education; first, as a pupil, later as a teacher in a public university, and for the past 5 years as a student of public education.

My opposition to Federal support for schools is not of recent origin. As a sophomore in college I became concerned over the perennial efforts of organized groups in education to divert a portion of the responsibility for schools from the States and local communities to the Federal Government.

My conviction is that Federal support for education is unnecessary, undesirable, dangerous, discriminatory, and irresponsible.

FEDERAL SUPPORT IS UNNECESSARY

Since reconstruction it has been argued that the States and local units of government would not and could not support schools and that the Federal Government would have to assume greater responsibility for public education in order to avert some sort of disaster. Many things have happened since the latter part of the 19th century, but they have not shaken the convictions of the proponents of Federal school support. Every improvement in public education seems to reinforce the dedication of those who favor Federal school-aid.

In 1870 a bill was introduced in Congress to establish a national school system, it being presumed that the States would not support public education. The President of the United States was to have the authority to appoint school superinendents and to determine whether or not the several States were operating satisfactory school systems. It is still the fear of many that a general program of Federal school support will lead to a national school system.

Congress was assured in 1870, 1880, 1890 and just about every year, month, and day since that the Federal Government had to do something for education. Yet, since 1890, when public education really began to expand in this country, the educational progress has far surpassed the most advanced dreams of anyone living at that time. During this period public school expenditures increased approximately 65 times although enrollments are yet to triple. Per capita expenditures have multiplied repeatedly and the percentage of national income going into public education has more than tripled.

This undreamed of generous support was accomplished without a general Federal school-aid program. We can only speculate as to what the results might have been had the Federal Government assumed a major role in public education 10 or 20 years ago. No one can be sure of the effects which a program of Federal support might have on education in the years ahead.

The large volume of school construction throughout the country during the past 10 years indicates that Federal aid for school buildings is unnecessary. The more than 500,000 classrooms constructed during the past decade is almost enough to house 50 percent of the pupils enrolled in our public schools. Year after year the rate of classroom construction exceeds the number necessary for enrollment growth and permits the replacement of old buildings and makes possible reductions in overcrowding.

An examination of classroom construction by States reveals that the less wealthy States have made about the same progress as the wealthiest States. Texas, which ranks 27th in income per capita, ranks fifth in classroom construction; Oklahoma ranks 37th in income but 10th in construction; Louisiana ranks 38th in income but 12th in construction; and South Carolina ranks 47th in income and 16th in construction. Conversely, the District of Columbia, which ranks 8th in income, ranks 48th in construction.

In Texas, 36 percent of the 1955 enrollment could be housed in the classrooms built during the past 4 years. The percentage is 33 in Oklahoma, 33 in Louisiana, 30 in South Carolina, 10 in the District of Columbia, 14 in Ohio, 18 in Rhode Island, and 50 in Nevada.

There seems to be no reason to believe that any State is unable to construct its needed classrooms. Actually it is difficult to think of any governmental function that is being discharged as well as that of classroom construction.

In some of the States, of course, there are school communities that need and are receiving financial assistance from State government. However, there are many States which have not found the need for State grants. My own State, Indiana, is one of the States in which classrooms are being constructed without State grants. The only State support is through long-term loans at 1 percent interest. This arrangement apparently is successful and acceptable to the citizens of Indiana.

Our legislature adjourned Monday, and not a single bill was introduced to provide State grants for school building construction. There is not a single group in the State of Indiana seriously interested in State building grants. On Monday of this week I called the State department of public instruction and asked if there were any schools in the State operating double shifts. It was guessed by the officials that there might be one or two in Lake County, but that they could not be sure that there was even one school on a double shift. This probably is the explanation for the lack of interest in State grants for buildings.

Percent of the 1955 enrollment, at 30 pupils per room, that could be housed in classrooms constructed during 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958, related to the 1956 per capita income of the States

Source: U.S. Office of Education. New York omitted for lack of data.

The point I want to make is that Indiana, which is an average State in population, enrollment, rate of growth, per capita income, per pupil expenditures, and teachers' salaries, has only a few at the most and perhaps no schools which find it necessary to operate double programs for pupils. This has been accomplished without State grants, and generally without unreasonable local tax efforts.

The case for Federal support for teachers' salaries is even weaker than the case for building support. Teachers, of course, are not entirely satisfied with their salaries, but this is true of practically all of us. Teachers seem more unhappy over the extracurricular duties than over salary levels. Unfortunately a substantial portion of their time is devoted to routine work which is only remotely connected with improving the minds of youngsters. This general situation does not require Federal support and could be corrected by school officials who feel it is a threat to education.

Although many teachers leave the profession each year, only a few leave to accept nonteaching positions. The national figures were not readily available but they do not differ too much from those in Indiana. A careful study of teachers in Indiana by the Indiana State Department of Public Instruction reveals that only about one percent of the State's teachers leave the profession each year for other employment. The main reasons for leaving are homemaking, transfers to other schools, further education, and military service. In recent years teachers' salaries have risen substantially. Also, the percentage of teachers with college degrees continues to increase and the ratio of pupils to teachers continues to grow more favorable. In other words, the number of teachers is increasing faster than the number of students, and the amount of training possessed by teachers is rising. In the Nation, teachers' salaries increased 68 percent in purchasing power between 1942 and 1958, and now are approaching $5,000 annually for 9 months of employment. The passage of time and rising salaries have put an end to the general teacher shortage. Again, I would like to refer to Indiana where salaries approximate the national average (1958: national average $4,650, Indiana $4,618). Teachers in our State are among the best paid employees of State and local governments. The salaries of many superintendents exceed those of the Governor and the Supreme Court justices. Many superintendents receive more than $15,000 annually and several are paid more than $20,000. The principals of our high schools in large cities receive larger salaries than department heads in State government and classroom teachers' salaries, in the main, compare favorably with those of instructors in our State colleges and universities.

Although I favor much higher salaries for better teachers, I do not believe that salary levels have prevented large numbers of young men and women from entering the teaching profession. In education there are both surpluses and shortages of teachers. In State after State there are too many persons trained in physical education, social studies, and commerce, while not nearly enough are trained in science, mathematics, and foreign languages, and for the elementary grades. Two-thirds of the Nation's teachers still are being trained for the high schools which have less than one-third of the pupils.

These imbalances are caused by many factors, including too much emphasis on easy courses, restrictive licensing requirements, and the practice of paying teachers on a basis which disregards ability, effort, and achievement. Not to be ignored is the fact that it is only in education that men and women are paid on the same salary schedule.

More teachers are needed in certain fields, but the overall number of teacher graduates is more than adequate. That teacher groups are concerned over the developing surplus of teachers is evident from discussions with members and from any study of the arbitrary and discriminatory teacher licensing requirements. In most States these requirements constitute a roadblock to college graduates who want to teach. They also make it difficult for teachers to change from high school teaching to elementary teachers and they deter teachers from changing from one grade level to another.

Each year thousands of teachers move into and out of the teaching ranks for a variety of reasons. This is a characteristic of the profession and accounts for part of its popularity. But when the number of college graduates moving into and out of the profession are deducted from the total number of teachers needed, the number of new graduates needed is less than 50 percent of the total number graduated each year.

While there is general dissatisfaction with the type of training required for teachers, they do have more training than ever before. In 1918 only 10 percent of the teachers were college graduates. Now, the National Education Association estimates that 93 percent of the total teaching force enjoys State certification. If the States would modify their licensing requirements to place the emphasis on basic subject matter and eliminate discriminatory practices, all of the teachers could be college graduates, if the States so desired.

The steady developments in this area are most encouraging. Salaries are rising, the ratio of pupils to teachers is becoming more favorable and the amount of training given teachers is rising. But I would like to re-emphasize that many individual teachers and their organizations are uneasy over the growing surplus of college graduates who are qualified for teaching positions.

Not only are the States and communities capable of financing public education, they have been doing so by increasing total public school expenditures by more than 12 percent each year.

In 1946, the public schools spent approximately $2.8 billion. Ten years later, in 1956, they were spending more than $11 billion. Although inflation has reduced the effectiveness of each dollar, the increase still is remarkable. Schools in Indiana have increased expenditures from $87 million in 1946 to an estimated $340 million for 1958. The per pupil expenditures rose from $139 to $383, and the operating expenditures per pupil rose from $133 to about $300. In spite of inflation, the per pupil expenditures, in constant dollars, in Indiana have increased 70 percent in 12 years.

State and local government public school expenditures, United States

These expenditures will continue to increase. The 1959 legislation substantially increased State school support and did so without raising taxes or borrowing funds. This could not very well be accomplished by the Federal Government.

FEDERAL SUPPORT IS UNDESIRABLE

Federal school support is undesirable because it would tend to undermine our present decentralized and diversified system of education, under State, local and private control. Such a system encourages improvements, competition, pride, responsibility, experimentation, and financial support. It allows schools to make mistakes. But the absence of national directives and control makes it unlikely that all schools will take the wrong path or seek the wrong ends. General Federal support for public education might very well cause a deterioration in relative interest and a reduction in financial support as school boards and legislatures prepare budgets with Federal contributions in mind. School boards and legislatures will not allocate State and local funds as though Federal moneys were not available. The funds from Washington would encourage school authorities to reduce State and local support. This would be a serious mistake, in my opinion. Tax reductions are needed, but they are needed most at the Federal level so that States and communities can more easily finance State and local governmental functions.

In return for Federal support school authorities would eventually be forced to relinquish some policy decisions and control over education. To me this is not a fair exchange. I can find nothing which convinces me that Federal support, advice and guidance will strengthen our public schools. Confidence cannot be found in the fiscal structure of the Federal Government. It seems to be worse than that of any State. It is not likely to be improved by the enactment of legislation to assume responsibilities that can best be discharged locally. The arguments favoring greater equalization of school costs and minimum national standards are not as important as the arguments favoring schools financed and operated by State and local levels of government. State and local support of education has furnished us with a school system superior to any other system known to civilization. Public education has become the major function of State and local governments, and receives more sympathetic consideration than any other governmental function.

If we are realistic, we have to admit that Federal support for schools would mean meeting current school expenditures with borrowed funds. The Federal budget generally is out of balance in good years and bad. It somehow seems absurd to engage in the practice of using borrowed funds for routine, everyday, operating expenses.

A fair and proper program of school finance necessarily involves regulations, standards and controls. But a program involving regulations, standards and controls is not necessarily desirable. No one really expects Federal aid without some measure of Federal control. Federal aid with controls will lead to Federal standards, more uniformity, more conformity, more centralization and eventual loss of control by local school officials and school patrons.