(3) Annual expenditures by general categories are as follows:

I would like to call your attention to community services which were subsequent to 1954-55 handling through a separate tax in a separate fund, therefore, these expenditures do not show on a general purpose budget. (4) Annual amounts of aid from city, county, State, and Federal Government are as follows:

Federal aid includes Federal and State vocational education, Public Law 874, veterans' education and Federal aid in lieu of taxes.

If there is additional information desired or if you require further clarification of any of the items listed above, please feel free to call on us.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. JEFFERY COHELAN,

A. B. SAATHOFF, Controller.

MARCH 17, 1959.

Member of Congress

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am in receipt of your letter with reference to fiscal data on Berkeley Unified School District and am hastening this answer to you. Please feel free to call collect to me if you wish further information. Best personal wishes, and many thanks for your fine interest in schools. Cordially,

Mr. BAILEY. The next witness is Dr. W. W. Hill, Jr., on behalf of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce.

Dr. Hill, will you come forward and identify yourself for the record?

STATEMENT OF W. W. HILL, JR., DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FOR THE COLLEGE LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY EUGENE RENTA, RESEARCH DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is W. W. Hill, Jr. My home address is 4142 Norrose Drive, Indianapolis.

I am director of educational research for the College Life Insurance Co. of America.

With me today is Mr. Eugene Renta, research director of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce.

Mr. BAILEY. Before you start in with your presentation, we had before the committee some days ago a representation of the national chamber. They were quite critical of the manner in which the Department of Education has been handling our educational affairs.

I suggested to him that maybe we should turn over the management of the Department of Education to the chamber of commerce. I hope I do not have to remind you of that.

Mr. HILL. I doubt that they would want that function. Mr. BAILEY. They seemed to be extremely interested in it, sir. Mr. HILL. I am not familiar with their testimony of Wednesday, but I think the national chamber is deeply interested in education. I appear here on behalf of the 28 of the 29 State and regional chambers of commerce that are members of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce and also the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, and these latter two are not members of the council. I appear here on behalf of the members of these 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 the Federal support for education is unnecessary, undesirable, dangerous, discriminatory, and irresponsible.

Mr. BAILEY. Now, I am convinced that it would not be a good idea to turn the management of our educational affairs over to the chamber of commerce.

Go ahead.

Mr. THOMPSON. Dr. Hill, I have your statement here. Do you have sections supporting these points?

Mr. HILL. Yes, I do.

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 divert 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 superintendents 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 support will lead to a national school system.

Congess 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.

Mr. BAILEY. Right at that point, your chamber has some figures which I think went into the record when the national chamber was testifying. They showed 58 percent of the cost of the support of schools coming from local taxes; 38 percent, I believe, from State sources, and approximately 4 percent from the Federal Government. Does your research department have figures to that effect? Mr. HILL. I don't have those exact figures.

Mr. BAILEY. We do not want the chambers of commerce to get mixed up in their own figures.

Mr. HILL. No. The 4 percent for the Federal Government seems about right to me.

As to the percentage for all the States, I don't know exactly what it is now. In some States the bulk of the support comes from the State level. In others, only a small amount comes from the State level. In my own State of Indiana 70 percent of the support comes from the local property tax, and 30 percent from the State gross income tax. Mr. BAILEY. You know, it is apparent that your research bureau has made an extensive study of the backgrounds of this educational question, but I venture they have not found an incident back in 1836 during the second administration of Andrew Jackson when Congress found itself with $47 million surplus in the Treasury and they passed a law and made an appropriation distributing that money to the 38 States for the purpose of building school buildings. They all took the money and built school buildings. It did not destroy the constitution; it did not interfere with the American way of life.

So I want to question one of your major objections and that is that it is a sort of un-American and dangerous precedent to be setting. We

e are not setting any precedent. We have already been in business ever since Andrew Jackson's time.

Mr. HILL. Yes. I am aware that there are dozens and dozens of specific Federal programs where the money, directly or indirectly, finds its way in the school budget or it is paid to the schools, at the State and local level and the college and university levels.

But these are fractional programs, not general programs, and the percentage is small.

Much of the money that is spent by the Federal Government for education is actually no help to them because the services that are performed in the colleges and universities frequently cost more than they get from the Federal Government.

These are programs to help the Federal Government and frequently not to help the schools.

Mr. BAILEY. May I remind the witness that, under the impact school legislation bill which was passed in 1950, we have constructed approximately $1,200 million worth of school buildings which the Federal Government participated in supplying the major part of the building funds.

Nobody seems to quite get excited about that. There is far more Federal control and far more interference in that legislation than in the legislation proposed by either the administration or the MurrayMetcalf bill.

There does not seem to be too much objection to that type of legislation. It has been quite helpful to about 3,300 districts.

Now, I do not believe that Indiana participated in it. Is that right? Mr. THOMPSON. Under 874 and 815; yes, they did.

Mr. HILL. There are three or four districts in the State that have received very small amounts. Jeffersonville, Lawrence, which is right outside of Indianapolis, and around the Crane depots in the southern part of the State. Bunker Hill probably is participating. This is a program with which most people are not familiar.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you favor it?

Mr. HILL. I favor the objectives of the program, but I do not favor the way it has been administered since it was established in 1950.

I think the program has been administered very poorly. In 1955I was one of the few men asked by the Appropriations Committee to