Decisions would be made by remote control in Washington for the benefit of millions of teachers, school officials, school patrons and pupils. In this sequence I deliberately place pupils last. They may be last in the considerations of Congress after the organized interests apply their pressure. Decisions should be made locally. Federal control of education a few years ago might have meant nationwide emphasis on social adjustment and progressive education, currently it might be national concentration on science, mathemathics and foreign languages, in the future it might turn to driver education, physical education and outdoor recreation. FEDERAL SUPPORT IS DANGEROUS There are positive dangers in having the National Government assume responsibility for financing and regulating public education. These dangers include those mentioned earlier, but there are others. Congress, I am sure, is not interested in controlling public education. The danger would be presented by various organizations in education which honestly believe that their ideas and suggestions on education are so compelling that they should be written into law and made applicable to all pupils and all schools. The belief of organized education that all good things should be made mandatory is evident from State laws, State regulations, resolution of education groups, and profesional education literature. Not long after the enactment of a major Federal school support program the drive would begin to have the Federal Government shape the future of education by ensuring that the Federal funds are spent to promote the national interest. To get "wise" expenditures, the Congress would have to pass legislation and authorize the Office of Education to make and enforce more rules and regulations. Instead of seeking changes in each school district, or in each State, educational organizations would find it more efficient and convenient to get Federal legislation which would apply to all schools and pupils at the same time. These are some of the policy decisions and controls which I anticipate would be gradually moved from the State and local levels to Washington. National certification of teachers; required courses in foreign languages, mathematics, science, driver education and physical education; school district reorganization; educational television; a national school board; compulsory kindergartens and nurseries; minimum statutory salaries, minimum standards for buildings and school busses. In time the Federal Government would be urged to approve textbooks and other classroom materials, as it now is doing under the National Defense Education Act, through the Office of Education. Federal certification for teachers, it can be argued, would assure the same minimum standards of instruction in all States for all pupils; make it easier for teachers to move from one State to another in search of employment; and reduce the undesirable competition for teaching positions. It can also be urged that the Federal Government already specifies the required training for teachers in vocational education programs financed with Federal funds and that this same protection should be afforded all pupils. Organizations and individuals keenly interested in foreign languages, mathematics, and science may feel that all students should have at least 2 years of such subjects and that this cannot be accomplished if left to the school communities and the States. Various interests will assure the public that Federal funds should be spent only for things in the public interest and that these subjects are vital to the security of the country. Driver education for all who drive is plausible. It is almost as plausible to require all people who will drive to take a course in driver education. Using such logic it can be urged that driver education be required for all pupils for our lives are endangered by drivers who do not know how to drive. Physical education, of course, is in the national interest and should be taken by all. A minimum amount of such education for all pupils, some will urge, should be made mandatory. The number of States now requiring physical education probably exceeds the number requiring a laboratory science or mathematics and much larger than the number requiring foreign languages. These and other curriculum requirements will be urged upon Congress by many of the same organizations now supporting Federal school-aid. They will genuinely feel that their recommendations and prescriptions are so good that all pupils should have them in equal quantities, or in stated minimum amounts. Federal funds should not be used to finance inefficient school districts. This seems reasonable. A similar cry regarding State support has been made in most of the States that are trying to reduce the number of small, inefficient high schools. I might very well be among those who demand that Congress do something about such schools that waste tax dollars on skeletal school programs. Let me illustrate. Florida has 67 school districts, Indiana has more than 1,000, and some States have more than 4,000. In the North Central States there are thousands of small high schools with enrollments of less than 100. Why should these schools be allowed to waste funds collected from the American taxpayer? If all the taxpayers of the Nation are going to help support wasteful schools, they will be reasonable in demanding that citizens therein give consideration to their recommendations. A national educational television network under the supervision and operation of the Office of Education could be demanded for the simple reason that educational television is considered to be a good thing and some States are refusing to utilize it. The National Education Association has long sought a national school board and would find the need immensely greater once the Federal Government embarked on a general school support program. This same organization, along with its dozens of affiliates, can be expected to seek a national minimum salary schedule. All of these things are desirable to some individuals and groups. Also, it seems logical and reasonable to ask the Government to regulate the purposes for which it spends money. To me, these expectations are quite real. Control over most of these matters already has been taken from the school communities and given over to State officials. The next step would be to move the control to Washington. Once the Federal Government is involved in teacher certification, fixing salaries, reorganizing school districts, and imposing curriculum standards, it would not be too difficult to funnel through the schools propaganda and indoctrination. The propaganda may be good, or it may be bad. If it can be done at all, it is dangerous. Further, I can see nothing inconsistent with the Federal Government, or more specifically, the Office of Education, approving the textbooks to be used in schools supported, in part, with Federal dollars. Dangerous, perhaps, but illogical, no. It might well be contended that national approval of textbooks is in the national interest. A single provision at the beginning of an act forbidding officers and agencies of the Federal Government from interfering with curriculum or personnel of the public schools is of little comfort. It can be altered. It can be evaded. More to the point, Congress can promptly enact other laws specifically requiring controls. Is there anyone anywhere who could have predicted the extent to which Federal controls have been imposed on the American farmer? The belief that Federal support will lead to Federal control seems to be growing. Recently, Adlai Stevenson included the following statement in one of his speeches: "The fear of surrendering to centralized control the responsibility for the education of our young is, I think, still valid. Because in a vast country like this, the further you remove the responsibility for education from the locality, the more you endanger the interest and concern and the sense of responsibility of the individual citizens in the community. And what we desperately need is more, not less, individual concern for education. Indeed, I think the need transcends classrooms, teachers, and all other school needs." At Atlantic City recently, Dr. Edgar Fuller, secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, told a group of the American Association of School Administrators that Federal control was being exercised under the new National Defense Education Act. No one disagreed with him during the meeting; others on the panel, including Dr. Finis Engleman, executive secretary of the American Association of School Administrators, and Mr. Oliver Hodge, the State school superintendent of Oklahoma, shared his concern over Federal control and severely criticized the Federal controls now being imposed. Federal control will follow Federal aid just as surely as night follows the day, but it may not be apparent until the schools are so dependent on Federal support that they cannot convenienty relinquish what appears to be a free subsidy. FEDERAL SUPPORT IS DISCRIMINATORY Federal school support means that we discriminate against the citizens in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in favor of the citizens of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kentucky. This would be done without any real concern for existing spending patterns, tax burdens and without appreciation for cultural, economic and social priorities of the citizens of the various school communities and States. Some States would gain money from the program and others would lose money. All might lose something more valuable than the subsidies-that is State and local control over education. Federal school support, through discrimination against some States in favor of others, would tend to equalize school costs and perhaps per pupil expenditures. This might be more important if we could equate expenditures and educational achievements. This seems to be impossible. Naturally, a school system can be pauperized by lack of funds, but expensive schools are not necessarily good schools. Success has not blessed any of the serious efforts to find a correlation between expenditures and educational achievement. Larger school expenditures in the wealthier States do not necessarily result in higher educational achievements there as compared with achievements in States with less wealth and lower expenditures per pupil. Some States and some school districts simply have to pay higher salaries than others. Also, school expenditures are factors of pupilteacher ratios and these are largely influenced by school unit organization. The highest paid teachers in Indiana are employed by school districts in Lake County. But the most experience and best trained teachers are employed in small towns of central and southern Indiana, where the average salaries are up to $1,000 less per year. An illustration of why certain States spend more than others is shown in the relative school construction costs. The U.S. Office of Education has made some interesting cost studies. For example, a few years ago when the Office of Education calculated building costs at $630 per pupil in Alabama and $715 in Florida, it fixed the costs at $1,383 in Illinois, $1,447 in Maryland, and $1,483 in Ohio. H.R. 22, introduced by Congressman Metcalf, contains many discriminatory features. In this respect the bill is not unusual. A Federal program based on this bill would discriminate against States in which the school districts are efficient, States which are above average in income, and States which, for one reason or another, are not making an effort approximating the national effort. Schools in States with large numbers of small school districts and relatively few pupils would receive a windfall under H.R. 22. If they are in States which also fall below the average in income per school-age child, the bonus may be larger. This is true because States with large numbers of small schools tend to have unrealistic pupil-teacher ratios. This ratio magnifies per pupil costs and results in wasteful expenditures. Because the per pupil cost is high and the resulting effort substantial, such schools would get favorable treatment under H.R. 22. States with pupil-teacher ratios of 15 to 1 (North Dakota), 16 to 1 (South Dakota), 18 to 1 (Nebraska and Iowa), and similar ratios will show more effort, but not necessarily more results than States with pupil-teacher ratios of 25 to 1 or 30 to 1. Poor school organization in these States is not the fault of the Federal Government or the citizens of other States. Premiums should not be paid for such inefficiencies. Requiring the various States to render an effort equal to that of the effort of the average State is arbitrary. While it is designed to assure that States will exercise substantial efforts and to give relatively more money to some States and relatively less to others, this entire purpose might not be achieved. It is possible, of course, for all States to relax in their financial efforts and depend on Congress for more and more support. It is not possible to devise fair Federal support distribution formulas. There are objections to returning to each State a percentage of its Federal net income tax payments; objections to fixed and uniform payments per pupil; wealth and ability factors have their critics, as do all other formulas. There seems to be no fair way of discriminating against approximately half the population in half the States. Since the States that would be benefiting by the discriminatory action are not demanding special consideration, and since the States and local governments are doing a much better job in education than the Federal Govern ment is doing in the administration of its untold number of services, and since the Federal Government cannot afford the services now being performed, it would seem unwise to have it attempt the task of providing the impossible, a program of fair and equitable school support without Federal regulations. FEDERAL SUPPORT IS IRRESPONSIBLE Most legislatures are required by their State constitutions to provide for a system of public schools. No such mandate appears in the Federal Constitution. It is not responsible government for Congress to assume a role which is a legal obligation of the various States. Neither is it responsible government for the central authority to assume functions which are clearly local in nature. We can assume, of course, that Federal funds would be of assistance to many school districts throughout the Nation. It also is possible that other school districts could be weakened by relying on Federal subsidies. School boards and local taxpayers may decide to wait for more congressional appropriations before raising teachers' salaries, constructing more buildings, buying needed equipment, or adding new personnel for guidance and counseling. CONCLUSION We fully realize that the long-term trend has been in the direction of increased centralization of governmental functions and that few areas are immune to Federal influence and regulation. We sincerely hope that this trend will run its course before it engulfs public education. The member State and regional chambers of commerce in the Council of State Chambers of Commerce which have endorsed the foregoing statement are listed below: Alabama State Chamber of Commerce Missouri State Chamber of Commerce New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce Empire State Chamber of Commerce (New York) Ohio Chamber of Commerce Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce South Carolina State Chamber of Commerce Greater South Dakota Association East Texas Chamber of Commerce South Texas Chamber of Commerce West Texas Chamber of Commerce Lower Rio Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce (Texas) Virginia State Chamber of Commerce West Virginia Chamber of Commerce Wisconsin State Chamber of Commerce In addition to the above listed chambers of commerce, the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and the Salt Lake City, Utah, Chamber of Commerce endorse this statement. 37378-59-34 (Mr. Brademas subsequently asked, and permission was granted, that the following letter and accompanying documents be inserted at this point in the record:) Hon. CLEVELAND BAILEY, INDIANA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, INC., Indianapolis, Ind., March 13, 1959. Chairman, House Subcommittee on Education, MY DEAR MR. BAILEY: It has come to our attention that certain individual testimony before your subcommittee concerning Federal grants-in-aid to education was meant to leave the erroneous impression that parent-teacher groups and related organizations in Indiana were doing nothing to gain public support for education here. Having just come through a rigorous 61-day session of our State General Assembly, I can personally assure you that this accusation is either made out of ignorance of the economic facts of life or else the gentleman's remarks were grossly misunderstood. I was 1 of 13 individuals appointed to a Governor's committee on school aid distribution to draw up a realistic formula for a sound educational program for Indiana, and served as secretary of that committee during the 10 months of continuous study. The total amount of this program if carried out would have amounted to $238,650,000 for the biennium. However, during the last frustrating days just passed we saw one by one the programs we knew to be sound and desirable kindergartens, capital outlay for buildings and bus bodies, ample current operating expense-all these things we saw cut out in order to fit the Governor's budget figure of $205,500,000. Yes, and all these cuts had the sanction of the very "special interest" spokesman who stood before your committee and would have you believe that nothing is being done in Indiana to gain public support of education. These interests made no attempt to stop State matching funds taken from support of education in order to qualify for Federal highway funds. Perhaps some of us here are putting our efforts in the wrong locale. Perhaps we should spend more time before committees in Washington instead of staying at home frantically in search of funds which always seem just out of our reach. Sincerely yours, MARGARET HERRIN The Honorable HAROLD W. HANDLEY, Governor of Indiana, State House, Indianapolis, Ind. DEAR GOVERNOR HANDLEY: In accordance with your request, the committee on school aid distribution has met and discussed possible ways to adjust the cost to the State of the committee's recommendations for the distribution of funds for local schools. These adjustments are listed to show the flexibility of the proposed program and are not to be considered as recommendations of the committee. The committee reaffirms the original recommendations in its report as constituting a good program, within practical limitations that exist, for the distribution of State funds for schools. Any adjustments necessitated by cost considerations can be accomplished only through changes in the plan which the committee believes would cause it to be less effective in carrying out its purposes. |