ability to do it, or per child, than we are. In fact, there is a very good indication that they are spending less. What the exact figures would be, I would be the first one to say no one knows precisely. I presume no one knows precisely. At least we have never seen any figures, nor have the people in the Education Department, Office of Education or in the NEA, or anybody else, that could be taken as absolute, objective, factual statements of comparison. But I think there is every reason to believe on the information that we do have; that is available to everybody else, that we are spending relatively much more in terms of amount. We are spending even more in terms of gross national product, and our gross national product is estimated to be about 212 times that of Russia today. That we are being outdone by Russia is one type of statement being made which I think is confusing. I would make another type of statement here. Let us make some comparisons between 1929 and today in the growth and educational investment in this country, and compare that with other types of growth in this country and elsewhere. The increase in staff in education from 1929 to 1957 has been 125 percent as contrasted to only 44 percent increase in business, for example, private business generally; the number of people employed in staff capacity. The pupil-staff ratio that is, of the number of people in professional teaching or administrative capacities in all of education-has declined from 1.23 pupils during this period of time to 1.14 pupils today. If we consider the total product of private economy, it has increased 110 percent in this period of time, but public school expenditures have increased 255 percent. These are relative figures in terms of constant dollars to the extent that they could be computed, and relative to other segments of our own economy. They are not just absolute figures. The earnings of wage earners generally in this period of time increased 83 percent. The salaries of teachers in this same period of time, and on the same comparable dollars, increased 95 percent. Construction generally, home construction, industrial construction, and various types of construction in this period of time increased 48 percent. The construction of public schools increased 136 percent in this period of time. These figures are subject to various interpretations, but I think the implication of considering them all together is that in terms of our total national effort, economically and otherwise, we have not been neglecting our schools relatively. There has been more relative progress in expenditures in investment in schools than there has been in other areas. Yet we hear statements today to the effect that, in this country of plenty and of a high level of economy, we are neglecting our schools that it is a shame we are devoting so little of our money to the support of our schools. I think these figures and others, many others, some in this testimony that I have written up, could be quoted to indicate that is just not so. We have done a remarkable job in improving the expenditures for education. has In terms of per-pupil expenditures in the last 20 years, the increase gone from $160 per pupil to $310 per pupil, today, in comparable dollars. A remarkable increase in investment there. There are many other figures of this kind. I believe this committee had some testimony from Dr. Heller recently, of the University of Minnesota. I think he quoted some figures to substantiate this general view. He quoted the figure that the increase in the gross national product per capita in this period of time was 19.1 percent. But the increase in educational expenditures per student was 59 percent. A tremendously larger increase in expenditures per pupil than the increase in the general gross national product per capita in this period of time. We could cite other facts, and have, in the written testimony, but I will very briefly summarize the statement. And I think this can be substantiated without any question. We have made a phenomenal investment in education in this country, something that we should be tremendously proud of. As compared to any other country in the world, it stands high and it is not likely that there are going to be others even to match it, particularly Russia. I am going to cite some other facts in regard to Russian education a little later on. Mr. BAILEY. Would you care to have the Chair observe that most of this has been accomplished despite the opposition of the chamber of commerce? Mr. WATSON. I would say certainly not despite the opposition, because I know from personal experience, having been a member of this education committee, the extent of the money and time that have been devoted to impressing the public, the chambers and businessmen, generally, with the urgent necessity of improving education and of supporting it and supporting it at the local level. Mr. BRADEMAS. May I interrupt at that point, sir, to ask if I can take that statement to mean that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, at the State level throughout this country, has been supporting increased expenditures by State legislatures for education? Mr. WATSON. Let me qualify my answer. Mr. BRADEMAS. I think it needs some qualification. Mr. WATSON. When you ask whether the national chamber is supporting State legislation and so on, the national chamber simply represents the concensus and views and membership of all of these individual chambers throughout the country. It has no control, actually, over what an individual State'chamber would do. Mr. BRADEMAS. But your statement would lead one to think that at the State level chambers of commerce were out beating the drums for increased expenditures on education. I live in the State of Indiana, and I am a member of the chamber of commerce. So I have a certain amount of close contact with the position of the chamber, and, unless I am badly mistaken, I would not say that the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce was in the forefront of those groups urging that the State of Indiana spend more money on education. Mr. WATSON. We know that there are chambers, as there are legislative bodies, even school bodies, everywhere who have different views on the local situation. But in the national chamber's policy point of view it is committed to the view that education should be supported at the State and local level through whatever means are necessary and has urged local chambers to support that point of view. Mr. BRADEMAS. This sounds splendid, but let us get down to facts. I would like to know to what extent in the 49 States of the United States it can legitimately be said that the chamber of commerce supports increased expenditures on education. If there is no evidence to support the contention that you are urging greater expenditures on education at the State level, then the statemen that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is in favor as a national organization of more money being spent on education is really a very irrevelant and meaningless statement. Is that not a fair proposition? Mr. WATSON. Certainly your question is pertinent and appropriate. I am not as familiar with the activities of all chambers over the country as the staff members are. I do know from hearing reports of local chambers' education committees of what they are doing-in convocation, when they have explained what they were doing locally. There are very strong efforts on the part of many chambers for increasing the support of education locally. But for specific facts I would like to call on my supporter here, Dr. John Miles, who is a member of the staff and executive secretary of the education committee, to comment on that fact. Mr. MILES. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Brademas, I think it important to stress the fact that the chamber of commerce, as an organization and as a movement, is not a chain-of-command organipany us in whatever our national consensus of opinion is. Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand that. Mr. MILES. Many national organizations are of that type, but ours is a strictly voluntary federation of autonomous and completely independent local and State groups who may or may not chose to accompany us in whatever our national concensus of opinion is. Mr. BRADEMAS. How do you get a national consensus of opinion? Mr. MILES. We get it through a very thorough and highly democratic approach to policymaking, which consists of the research and study of many, many committees in various segments of the economy; the recommendations of those committees which go to the board of directors-not for approval or disapproval but merely for concurrence as to whether they are timely in nature and national in importance. This, then, proceeds to the policy committee which is charged with getting consistency in the several aspects of policy to the degree that is possible in the many controversial areas of action today. That, then, goes to every local and State chamber of commerce for a vote either through referendum or through the delegates assembled at the annual meeting. These policies are thus not only democratically arrived at, but they must be rethought and reviewed and revoted at least every third year. This is a current consensus of opinion. But it does not mean that the Indiana State Chamber or the Ohio State Chamber, with which I happen to be familiar, concur in these views at all. But the majority do, and the majority are following through. I wish I could have you see the file on file of activities of local and State chambers in this field. Mr. BRADEMAS. Can you give the committee this kind of a breakdown, namely, a compilation of the positions of the State chambers of commerce in each of the 49 States on education legislation in those States? I think that would give us a pretty good picture of whether or not the statement that we have just been told, that the chamber of commerce supports increased expenditures for education, has any basis in fact. (The information requested is as follows:) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BAILEY: During the hearings before your Subcommittee on General Education on March 11, you requested us to survey and compile a record of the positions taken by State chambers of commerce on State legislation or other State action in support of education. Telegrams were sent the following day to all State chambers known to have a legislative program on education, requesting a statement and documentation of their positions regarding State action and support for schools. Attached is a brief summary of the major items identified in the voluminous replies received from 21 of the 24 State chambers surveyed. We will appreciate it if this letter and the summary are included in the record of the hearings of your committee and identified as a response to your request for such information. Sincerely yours, JOHN R. MILES, Manager, Education Department. SUMMARY OF ACTION REPORTED BY STATE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ON SCHOOL LEGISLATION Alabama Believes education is a State function and Federal aid would lead to Federal control. In the last session of the Alabama Legislature, organization supported legislation which set up an Alabama Education Commission to study State's educational situation. Commission's report, on which some Alabama State Chamber of Commerce members served, recommended $37,300,000 in additional taxes for education. Organization supports: revision of State tax structure to increase revenue for schools; efficient expenditure of school money; increased local contribution to school costs. Arkansas Supported recent increase in State sales tax from 2 percent to 3 percent with understanding that additional revenue would be used to increase teacher's salaries. California In 1952, actively supported constitutional amendment increasing State aid for school districts from $120 to $180 per unit of average daily attendance. In 1957, supported bill to increase aid to $193.37 per unit. In 1949, was one of two major groups supporting initiation of State aid program for construction. Actively supported voted bond measures for grants and loans to school districts as follows: In 1957, supported the Weinland plan for a minimum foundation program passed by the general assembly which, among other features, provides a 12mill county levy to be distributed to school districts on the basis of their share of classroom units in the county. Organization is on record as favoring: (1) a need for expansion of base to support schools; (2) reorganization and elimination of nonoperating and uneconomic school districts. Opposes Federal aid to its schools. Connecticut Has traditionally believed that education is a State and local responsibility. In 1957, supported 2-year legislation recommended by the State fiscal study commission which provides a formula whereby average per pupil allocations are increased by $21 per child plus extra grants of $9.50 per pupil to communities which experienced exceptional growth of school populations. The bill comes up for renewal in the current general assembly and the Connecticut State Chamber of Commerce is expected to support it again. Delaware In 1957 supported establishment of vocational schools in two out of the three State counties; appropriations providing scholarships at the University of Delaware for prospective teachers; funds for remedial and clinical services; financial aid to needy students at the University of Delaware; funds for educating severely retarded and exceptional children; funds for scholarships at Delaware State College (colored); bonding school construction. Georgia Sponsored STAR (Student, Teacher Achievement, Recognition) program; encouraged and assists in direction of Georgia volunteer teacher scholarship program. Opposes Federal aid to schools. Illinois Opposes Federal aid to its schools. Recommends increased State tax rates; increased State appropriations for schools; consolidation of inefficient school districts. Supports construction loan fund to assist districts at the limit of their bonding power and continuation of State scholarship programs. Proposes legislation providing separate State bond issue for State university building construction and for construction of mental hospitals. Indiana In 1948 underwrote a comprehensive study of school financing problems in the State which developed a minimum school foundation program for State aid to local schools which was adopted by the Indiana Legislature in 1949. In 1958, by appointment from the Governor, participated in study commission to reevaluate the earlier program. In 1959 supported enactment of legislation to carry out recommendations of the commission which led to better equalization of State support for public schools. In 1957 and 1959 supported legislation to improve school reorganization and consolidation laws-enacted in 1959. Supports legislation establishing a countywide school tax of which proceeds are to be distributed in the counties on a per pupil basis; a promotion campaign to encourage teaching as a career; modification of State teacher licensing requirements to emphasize subject matter preparation leading to better trained teachers of physical sciences; increased appropriations for raising salaries of State university and college instructors. Conducts remarkable information program for and about public school system in the State. Publication entitled "Here Is Your Indiana Government" is used by 300 schools and is recommended by State superintendent of public instruction as a supplementary textbook for high school civics classes. Is on record as unalterably opposed to Federal aid for Indiana schools and as favoring local community responsibility for evaluating abilities and fixing compensation of teachers. Kansas In In 1957 supported legislation recommending appropriation for a permanent plan for financing State aid to high schools; legislation appropriating money for a comprehensive study and evaluation of the State's educational system. 1958 supported full financing of State aid formulas for elementary and high schools; appropriations for merit increases for State college faculties. Since 1947 organization has been recognized as a "friend of the schools" insofar as State financial proposals are concerned. Has consistently argued that the Kansas public school system is constitutionally and legally a State responsibility. Missouri Supports amendment to State constitution increasing bonded debt limitation for local school district construction; amendments to improve Missouri's school foundation program and increase in State taxes to finance it. Recommends further school reorganization and improved assessment procedures. Montana Supports studied of school curricula, school methods, the construction of school facilities and school administration to help insure that children shall have the basic education needed under its system of government and that public funds for that purpose shall be wisely and efficiently expended. |