Mr. ALEXANDER. No, sir. I think this goes back to the earlier discussion.

It seems to me as an individual that the role of Washington is to provide funds for the States, which under State control, can be spent either to give more money to the small schools or to provide large schools.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is not that the trouble? If what you are trying to do is to provide quality education, may you not be freezing the uneconomic school district setup; because there is not any financial necessity which results in a regional high school, such as my State has developed, are we not running into hazards that way, by providing a massive dose of dollars, along these lines?

Is that not one of the reasons why the Federal role has to be pretty carefuly thought out so as to encourage what we all recognize are beneficial trends, but whic hmay be lowered, and not eliminate those trends. altogether?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I say again, I think this committee has very difficult problems to consider, and I am delighted to have this chance to observe the thought which the committee gives such questions.

My own judgment is that our States have been able to continue moving toward reorganization of school districts and school consolidation along pretty good lines; even though we still have the 17,000 high schools that do not meet the standards proposed by Dr. Conant, we have a considerably larger average-size high school than we did when I was in high school. We have been moving in the right direction.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is that not perhaps the case because there is not any substantial Federal fund available to build these schools, and that they must look around for the most economic way of building, the most feasible one? In other words, what I am driving at is whether or not there is not real value, if we are going to develop a Federal program, in requiring some local and State participation? In other words, Mr. Metcalf has dismissed as no longer necessary or advisable the matching of funds. I am wondering whether the matching is not going to result in something very beneficial, a continued feeling of responsibility to see that the system that is being set up is the best and most economical that can be afforded?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I don't know what formula you might set up for matching, and I certainly do not want to get into the technical aspects of this problem. But when I know the situation in Tennessee right now, where yesterday morning's paper came out with banner headlines that the teachers' pleas were refused, and know that this is because in that State, from what I know, they have almost reached the limit of State resources for the support of education, I simply cannot see any program of assisting them which would require the State to raise additional funds, if that is what you mean.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Actually, you are asking, in effect, for New Jersey to bail out the State of Tennessee, then?

Mr. ALEXANDER. No, I am asking New Jersey to raise its level alsoas I understand this bill-by participating in the program. New Jersey would get a smaller percentage of increase, but it would get the same number dollars per school age child.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But the absence of any matching program, to my mind, makes a very real difference in the nature of the program,

and I think it would certainly make it have far less appeal. I do not believe that there are many States that would willingly confess the fact that they cannot afford to do more. A lot of States are not giving as much as we would recognize teachers' needs, or schools' needs generally to be. But it is not necessarily because they are bankrupt.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Dr. Lambert has some data on this.

Mr. LAMBERT. A few days ago we were compiling records on the tax effort of the various States; that is, tax effort as measured by total State taxes collected as a percent of total personal income payments. It happens that New Jersey is at the bottom of the 43 States in State tax effort, again as measured by total State tax collections as a percent of personal income payments. But I think we have to recognize that some States are doing three or four times as much-putting forth three or four times the effort that New Jersey is now putting forth, in terms of State revenues.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But this bill does not look at effort at all. That is what I am saying, and the chairman was saying earlier.

Mr. THOMPSON. Are those figures based on the States' efforts? Mr. LAMBERT. They are obtained by dividing total State tax collections by total personal income payments in the State.

Mr. THOMPSON. It does not take into account the municipalities?
Mr. LAMBERT. That is right.

In other words, I think in New

Mr. THOMPSON. The ad valorem taxes? Mr. LAMBERT. No local taxes. Jersey, what you have-as compared to other States-is a relatively low State taxload but probably a heavy taxload on your local districts in your property tax.

Mr. THOMPSON. You do not pay taxes on the State level in New Jersey, unless you bet on horses, smoke cigaretes, drink whisky, or drive a car or die.

Mr. LAMBERT. But you pay high property taxes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It means the citizens are not making an adequate effort.

Mr. THOMPSON. They ought to drink more.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It does not mean the citizens of the State are not making an adequate effort to provide education facilities, because they are. Granted, the State is not as aggressive in this as some would like to see.

Mr. LAMBERT. It is a problem of State-local sharing in New Jersey. Mr. THOMPSON. That is right. And this problem is not unique in New Jersey. One reason why I am so much in favor of this legislation is that the State has usurped the municipalities' tax functions, as the Federal Government has usurped the States' tax functions. On the local effort, the ad valorem taxes are carrying virtually all of the load.

We had a cigarette tax passed while I was in the New Jersey Legislature, and put on the stamps was "New Jersey School Tax." Those funds were diverted to highways and institutions and agencies and other things.

We do not allow, under our new constitution, dedicated funds. I think my colleague will agree with me that our State has been quite derelict as a State, but the individual taxpayer is carrying a tremendous burden.

I do not have available the figures, but I would venture to say that at least half of our school districts are up to the legal limit of their bonded indebtedness.

Mr. LAMBERT. The important point here is not the fact that some States and many local districts could do more, but it is a question of whether the Federal Government can escape the consequences of their not doing more.

Mr. THOMPSON. I was struck recently by a statement which the President made, quoting Abraham Lincoln, to the effect that his conception of the Federal Government's responsibility is to do for the States and the people that which they cannot do so well for themselves. I have paraphrased President Eisenhower, who paraphrased Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. BAILEY. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What would your answer be to your own question, Dr. Lambert? Do you think, if there has been a failure of responsibility at the local and State levels that that automatically creates an obligation of the Federal Government to step in and fill the vacuum?

Mr. LAMBERT. I am saying that if they do not, the Federal Government still does not escape the consequences.

I think we all know that national defense is going to be more and more a matter of brain power competition. We are seeing that right

now.

The question is: What happens if schools deteriorate? National defense is a responsibility of the Federal Government-and we know now of the direct relationship between education and the maximum development of brainpower in respect to the national defense problem. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That might, of course, lead us to a far more vigorous interest in the educational system than we have yet taken. It is because of this vacuum I am very much concerned with what we are doing. But I am still asking you the question, which you did not answer, and that is: If there has been a failure at the local and State levels, does that automatically create an obligation on the part of the Federal Government to step in?

Of course, any consequences would be shared by the Nation, and might affect the national defense. But you did not answer the question.

Mr. LAMBERT. I would answer your question "Yes."

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And do you think in that stepping-in process that we should try to insist that the local and State responsibilities are continued insofar as they can be?

Mr. LAMBERT. There is a maintenance of effort index in this bill. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, not for the first 3 years of the program. Mr. LAMBERT. That is true. The reason I suppose the first 3 years were exempted was the fact that there will be some necessary adjustments. As Mr. Bailey knows. in the development of any new financial aid law at the State level, there is usually a period of adjustment, so that financial programs will not be thrown out of kilter in the various local districts.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, consideration has to be given to the fact that many State legislatures meet only every 2 years, too.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would there not be a downward adjustment of the State's responsibilities, or certainly no increase of State or local responsibilities if we do provide this massive dose of Federal dollars? Would it not be important to other levels of government to do as little as possible, and if the Federal Government is stepping in in a major way to help solve some of these financial problems, that that will relax the efforts being made somewhere else, unless we have some specific provisions, such as matching funds, which require a continued effort?

Mr. BAILEY. May the Chair at this point observe, gentelmen, that I, and, I am sure, the committee, are enjoying this interchange of views here. It is quite informative and quite interesting, but I am sure there will be a quorum call in the House within the next 5 minutes, and we are going to have to call an end to the hearings today. Doctor, do you have any material that you care to file beyond your formal statement?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; I hope that certain sections of my written testimony, if not all of it, that I have not touched on, can be filed. I was going to talk about the need for additional services, such as libraries, counseling, and teachers of handicapped and gifted children, and also about the need for additional equipment. It seems to me that all of these things are required. But this can be filed and that will suffice.

(The written statement referred to is as follows:)

TEACHERS, CLASSROOMS, AND QUALITY INSTRUCTION-STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM M. ALEXANDER, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS, NASHVILLE, TENN., AND PRESIDENT-ELECT, ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, during the past 25 years as a teacher, and a supervisor, and a trainer of teachers, I have seen great variations in the quality of instruction and curriculum available to our children and youth. At the upper extreme I have seen classrooms in which almost every known need for high quality has been met; I have also seen classrooms in which the reverse is true. Although there are variations in the quality of other professional services, low quality education has the longest lasting and most adverse effect on the citizens of our Nation. An untaught or mistaught youngster may result in a potential civic leader becoming a public liability and nuisance. In most professions, the incompetent, professional person may run out of clients, but under existing teacher shortages, the incompetent teacher is all too frequently kept in the classroom, thus plaguing the efforts of pupils to receive quality instruction. A poorly prepared and ineffective teacher may lose the opportunity of further schooling for his pupils.

Our first line of national defense sags at its most critical point. Quality education is being denied to millions of our young people. The lag between low level schooling and the high level ideals of our people must be decreased. Although money alone will not solve all the problems of providing quality education, many critical problems in education cannot be solved without adequate finances. Good schools exist only as certain essentials are provided them. These essentials, we know, are: (1) competent teeachers; (2) enough classrooms to maintain a full school day for classes small enough to permit effective teaching; (3) a well-rounded program of studies; (4) adequate special services, such as libraries, guidance, and education of exceptional children; (5) wellequipped classrooms in all curriculum fields.

THE NEED FOR COMPETENT TEACHERS

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the facts of the national shortage of qualified teachers are well known to all the members of this committee. In the postwar years school boards and school administrators throughout our Nation have been

37378-594

working incessantly to secure persons who meet even minimum qualifications for teaching. Although these qualifications have been increased in past years, they are still below training standards for professions requiring no more exacting skill and knowledge. Most educators are convinced that a fifth year of college training should be required of teachers; yet, 29 percent of our elementary school teachers today have not completed a fourth year of college.

The importance of competence on the part of each teacher is emphasized by the fact that the average elementary teacher who retires this year will probably have taught approximately 1,000 American citizens, and the average high school teacher about 5,000 persons. For a moment, let us examine the educational ill effects of only 100 ineffective high school teachers who retire. A half million American citizens might not have received adequate instruction in the high schools. The possibility of such an undesirable influence on America's future is an alarming threat of the present teacher shortage. It matters tremendously to our Nation whether future citizens have profited from the impact of a skilled, informed, personable, and creative teacher in each year of their school or have had a school career spotted with instruction by temporary, part time, or unqualified teachers who have been employed merely to "keep school open." Continually staffing our elementary and secondary schools with competent teachers would do more than any other long-term program to develop and sustain children's and youths' interest in learning. Persons who lack adequate preparation for teaching can rarely interest others in the subjects they teach or successfully guide children and youth in learning activities. A survey cited in Better Schools (a publication of the National Citizens Council for Better Schools) last September revealed that in one out of three communities reporting a decline in science enrollments, the teacher was named as the No. 1 factor. In the cases where the teacher was named as the No. 1 factor, he was described as "poorly prepared," "uninspired," or "uninteresting." We all know teachers who make learning exciting, and who nurture the dreams and aspirations of excellence in terms of each pupil's capacity. The current and long-range need is for more, many more, of these competent teachers. They must come, I believe, from the group of able young people, who should enter teaching rather than other cur rently more lucrative careers.

The failure of many high-ability youth to take college training is both an indictment of and a potential loss to our profession. Undoubtedly many of that half of the upper one-fourth (in ability) of high school graduates estimated not to go on to college could become effective teachers. We desperately need more of this able youth population to aspire to teaching careers. At the same time, there is the unhappy reflection that many of these boys and girls might have been inspired to seek college training and teacher education had their teachers been more skilled in motivating and counseling their pupils. It has been my personal experience in working with hundreds of teachers that the single most influential factor in motivating a choice of a teaching career was the inspiration of an outstanding former teacher.

The recent efforts of the Congress in its passage of the Hill-Elliott bill to encourage more of this group to train for teaching are laudable and helpful. Yet until the Congress provides funds to help reduce the gap that exists between the salaries the college graduate can get in teaching and those he can get in many other fields, the intent of the Congress in its passage of the Hill-Elliott bill cannot be fully realized. When 1959 graduates see public school teachers rushing from the classrooms to part-time jobs in order to support their families, are they any more likely to select teaching than graduates of the past?

The tragic, continuing loss of men from teaching is a constant concern in providing high quality education in our schools. Granted that both men and women are needed in teaching, I believe a more balanced distribution of men and women teachers would improve the interest and application of our students. The presence of more men in the classrooms of elementary schools, as well as secondary schools, would be a constant reminder to students that education is a highly desirable profesison. It is disheartening to note from recent surveys of the National Education Association's research division that only a little more than one-half of the men now teaching say they would choose teaching if they could start over.

If we are to attract and keep competent teachers, there must be more promise of an income sufficient for the teacher to have an attractive style of living, to continue his studies, and to give full working time to his profession. A dismal fact about teachers' salaries is that this year only one teacher in five