Mr. BRADEMAS. Suppose it should be true that in a great majority of cases the State chambers of commerce are fighting increased aid to education, which is not an unreasonable supposition, I would say

Mr. HILL. I would take exception.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you?

Mr. HILL. Yes, I would.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am willing to hear the evidence, but I did not find any great

Mr. UDALL. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes.

Mr. UDALL. I gathered from a quick reading of the testimony that he was applauding because in the State of Indiana there was no State aid program.

Mr. HILL. No State aid for buildings and apparently no interest in it, because the State chamber worked harder than anyone I know in 1957

Mr. UDALL. You regard this as a highly desirable development?

Mr. HILL. I think that this is in a State that needs some State funds to help with their buildings.

Mr. UDALL. This is the thing that has always disturbed me, that many of the people who come before our committee and say that it is wrong for the Federal Government to come into the field, it should be left to the State and local communities, yet if you go to the State legislature the same people will appear and say no, this is a local problem.

Mr. HILL. The same thing has been said about the Indiana State Chamber where I am from, and I am more familiar with that.

Again, as I say, we took the lead for trying to get State grants for the school districts, but we got no help from the teachers associations nor the school boards, nor the schools themselves.

We do have State aid for teachers' salaries, transportation and operating costs, and those things. It was the State chamber in Indiana who did more to get new legislation on school consolidation than any other organization in the State.

In 1956 they made one of the most comprehensive studies of school reorganization made in any State, second only to that one made by the U.S. Office of Education.

In 1957 they worked very hard to get legislation to permit and make it easier for these school units to reorganize and give them some encouragement to do so.

That did not pass. It passed in 1959.

Mr. UDALL. I would certainly commend you and your organization for giving support to that type of program, because I think obviously that is one of the very serious deficiencies.

But it also seemed to some of us who have studied the problem for a considerable time that the root thing that is wrong with educational financing in this country is that too much of the problem is left at the local level where the tax base is so narrow and so constricted and so unfair that naturally schools are going to be underfinanced unless either the States or the Federal Government assumes some share of the burden.

I personally think if the States had stepped into the picture and let us say if we had had State financing completely that probably there would not be much of a demand for action at the Federal level.

That is just my own personal reaction.

Mr. HILL. I think there would still be demands because it is not just a matter of adequate support of schools; it is getting the Federal Government into the field.

Mr. UDALL. I want to pursue that point with you because I see some rather broad statements made.

What do you see in H.R. 22 that is going to get the Federal Government into the picture? Having a national school board, telling all the people how to make school policies? Do you see anything in that bill that really holds this promise?

Mr. HILL. Sir, it does not have to be in the bill. There are hundreds of bills that are introduced, more than that, each session.

Mr. UDALL. Your point is that it will inevitably fall sometime later, but it is not in the bill?

Mr. HILL. That is my belief.

It is not in the bill and it would not have to be in the bill. It could be in other bills.

Mr. UDALL. You agree with me that under the bill there would be no relationship or no dealings between Federal people and local people. The local people should make policy?

Mr. HILL. Under that bill itself, I would agree with you; but you have an existing agency that is already engaged in many educational functions, the Office of Education. You simply cannot separate that when a large spending program gets involved. The influence is bound to be there.

Many of us have been assured that there would be no controls under the National Defense Education Act. There seemed to be none in the bill except in provision after provision whereby these plans had to be approved by the Office of Education.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Were you and your organization in favor of the National Defense Education Act?

Mr. HILL. Absolutely not.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Do you agree with the position of Senator Jenner that was enunciated by him last August over here, that if the money were appropriated he did not want a dollar of it for Indiana? Do you agree with Senator Jenner's position?

Mr. HILL. I agree to this extent: I do not think the State of Indiana needs a single dollar of that money, that the State of Indiana is perfectly capable of meeting its needs.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Why is it, then, that various organizations have asked for some of that money in the State of Indiana?

Mr. HILL. I was speaking for myself, saying they did not need it, that the State of Indiana is capable.

We have had schools turn it down. Hanover, Wabash, Depauw, Franklin.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Do I understand you correctly that you are opposed to the appropriations in the National Defense Education Act coming from the State of Indiana that it feels it is all right that those of us out in our State can pay Federal taxes, but we are not permitted to use them. It is all right with you if we feed the cow, but you do not want us to milk it?

Mr. HILL. It is an interesting point in a place where you have difficulty reconciling principles with what actually takes place.

If it is a small amount of Federal funds, of course, the State and local units can refuse to take it. If it grows larger and larger and as taxes increase, it becomes impractical and politically impossible for them to refuse it.

In principle it is the same thing in refusing a dollar as a million dollars, but in reality it is not. But it is significant that we do have institutions that have refused to take part in this program.

Mr. BAILEY. Let me ask you a question at this point: We seem to be specializing in Indiana. Do you elect your State superintendent of schools in Indiana, or is he selected by a Governor?

Mr. HILL. We elect him.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We just elected a new one who will take office on the 16th of March. He is a very distinguished educator named William Wilson, who supports Federal assistance for education unlike his predecessor who was, as you know, a militant opponent of Federal aid to education.

Mr. BAILEY. Maybe there is some hope for Indiana after all.

Mr. HIESTAND. Would you not agree with the idea, with the philosophy, that where the Federal Government and the Congress votes vast sums to Federal aid there also accompanies it a responsibility to the taxpayers of the United States to see that these vast sums are properly spent in the States for the purpose written into the law? Mr. HILL. I agree completely, sir.

While I do not want Federal control of schools, I think in my school district in Indiana we are capable of deciding the policies for ourselves and I think Indiana is and I think Indiana wants to help the school districts in that State to meet their needs when they declare what they are; once the Federal Government begins to spend money for certain educational functions, it should make certain that the money is spent for the purposes established in the bill.

I do not think you can separate the spending and the regulations and control over these funds and I do not think you should take money from the American taxpayers and send it to some State or some school district without determining that they spend it as it should be.

Mr. BAILEY. Dr. Hill, we have three other witnesses scheduled for this morning. Suppose you move along with the rest of your presentation.

Mr. UDALL. I wanted to ask another question, if I may, with due regard for the requirement of time.

I notice you are expressing some concern here, in fact, you mention educational television, the fact that we are going to wake up and find one type of instruction all over the country. Of course, several States already have television instruction, notably such as the supposed backward State of Alabama, which has a statewide educational network or it is in the process of construction.

I have an invitation from the American Chemical Society and Encyclopedia Britannica to attend a premiere showing, a week or so from now, an entire course in chemistry on film which has been produced in cooperation with these two organizations.

37378-59--33

We already have one national program that you can see if you are in the right place at 6 o'clock in the morning that a lot of adults and school kids are taking in physics and so on.

It seems to some of us who have studied this problem, and we would like to think we are as concerned about economical and efficient operation of schools as anyone, that proper use of educational television may not only mean superior instruction, but may mean some very substantial savings in instruction if you get a statewide educational network or if you have in some areas a standardized lesson by superior instructors.

I was wondering if you really regard the development of educational television as a threat to proper schooling. Do you not see in it also some of the things I see as a potential?

Mr. HILL. I did not express any opposition to educational television. I am not opposed to it. I think it is very beneficial and should be used much more than it has been used and in different ways.

The point in the statement was that I thought there would be demands brought forth for a national educational television network as well as these other things which I have enumerated.

The concentration of the thing at the Federal level is what I consider dangerous.

Mr. UDALL. You see, this present high school physics course taught by Dr. White and this course that will be produced will be sold all over the country. This teacher will be teaching by film this particular subject matter in classrooms probably in every State in the union. I just wonder whether you regard that, getting down to a specific, as a bad development. Does this create alarm in your mind? Mr. HILL. No, sir; I think this is a desirable program.

Mr. UDALL. This will permit many high schools that do not even have physics or chemistry courses to have the courses and it has proven that some of these kids can do just as good a job with some help on the side, taking the course by film as others will do where they have the high school coach teaching chemistry.

Mr. HILL. So far there is no reason to believe that high school children cannot learn as effectively by television in consultation with a teacher as they can by being in the presence of a teacher and in the absence of television.

I favor very much more use of educational television. This is one thing, though, that I think will be demanded at the Federal level, but it is not the only one, there are numerous others.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair would like to observe that this is both interesting and informative, but it does not have too much to do with H.R. 22 and the administration proposal.

Let us get back on course.

Mr. HILL. It is a little difficult to get back on course without consuming too much of your time, but these things do have to do with H.R. 22 because they are part of the entire program.

One bill does not stand alone in education. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the Federal Government enters into this program in a big way, I think, will bring forth demands not only for educational television, but for minimum salaries at the national level, national certification of teachers, Federal requirements for kindergarten, nurseries and a whole host of other things.

Mr. BAILEY. I am chairman of the subcommittee that reported out the National Education Act in the last session of Congress.

I am interested in knowing whether you have any suggestions that that law should be amended.

Mr. HILL. The National Defense Education Act?

Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. HILL. The statement I made first was that there were rontrols being exercised under the act because the Commissioner of Education has to approve the plans before they get any money and that this has been criticized by the Secretary of the State Chief School Officers.

Mr. BAILEY. It is not a Federal plan; it is a State plan, and, therefore, does not have Federal interference.

Mr. HILL. Are you talking about the National Defense Education Act, or the Federal impacted area program?

Mr. BAILEY. I am talking about the National Defense Education Act.

Mr. HILL. A State cannot get any money, though, until its plans are approved by the Commissioner of Education.

Mr. BAILEY. They are not the Federal Government's plans; they are the State's plans.

Mr. HILL. They cannot be used, though, until the Commissioner of Education approves them. They are sometimes sent back again and again until they are approved by the Commissioner.

Mr. BAILEY. What questions do these raise about it? I had not learned that that was happening in the administration of the bill. Mr. HILL. This superintendent of the State of Oklahoma said that they had submitted theirs three times, it had been rejected, it had finally grown to 80 pages under title III, that the Office of Education had had it 49 days the last time and still had not approved it. Dr. Fuller, the State chief school officer, was criticizing the control here.

Mainly his criticism was the budget department making sure that these funds were going to be spent for the purpose that Congress had set forth, a perfectly reasonable position.

Mr. BAILEY. Proceed. You are going to have to end your testimony before too long.

Mr. HIESTAND. Are you on page 9 now?

Mr. HILL. No, sir; the questions and answers have covered much of the intermediate, so I think I can, instead of laboring thus, I will move on over to page 15.

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