All-in-all, there is nothing wrong with American public schools which money will not cure. The Federal Government is the only taxing agency with the ability to spread school costs among all of the people and bring schools and school systems up from their horse and buggy status.

The Murray-Metcalf bill is the finest Federal aid bill which has yet been introduced. It is realistic. It will begin to meet the Nation's needs. It begins with the proper premise of placing proper emphasis upon American boys and girls in American schools. I commend the sponsors of this bill and I recommend its passage.

Mr. MEGEL. I would like to comment just briefly.

I am serving my seventh year as president of the American Federation of Teachers. During this time I have visited 740 school districts in the 38 States, as well as in Hawaii. I have seen at first hand the deplorable classroom shortages.

This very day nearly 212 million boys and girls are compelled to attend school only one-half day.

We have 27,000 in Chicago; 43,000 in Illinois.

In State after State, churches, garages, gymnasiums, stores, and other makeshift structures are serving our schoolrooms for too many boys and girls.

I just came back from Indiana. In East Chicago, Ind., five churches are still being used to house boys and girls.

Because of the shortage of classrooms they put a curtain down through the middle of the gymnasium and two curtains across. This gymnasium now seats six classrooms as a makeshift situation in East Chicago, Ind.

Mr. BAILEY. Had I known you had that information I would most certainly have allowed you to get into the argument a moment ago. Mr. MEGEL. I am a native of Jennings County, Ind. I am a graduate of Franklin College, and I am well aware of the tremendous deficiencies that exist in Indiana.

In the school district where I went to high school they have been trying for 8 years to build an addition to their high school to properly house their boys and girls, but they have not been able to. They are still using the old Baptist Church across the street as makeshift housing for their boys and girls in that community besides all the rest of them.

These situations are endless.

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to submit to you for the record statements that we have gathered in a very short time from our locals in areas which outline the shortages.

These come from Massachusetts, from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, Texas, New York City, Chicago, Cleveland, from north and south, from east and west, outlining building shortages and the pathetically low salaries that the teachers are receiving in those areas.

Many areas are having difficulty this year meeting pay rolls.

I was in Newport, Ky., last week and this is the best paid area in the State of Kentucky. The difficulty is that we are still financing our educational system largely by property tax. Eighty-two percent of all school revenues come from property.

In 1940 and this is on page 2 of my report, in 1940 the assessed valuation of all property was $144 billion, whereas the national income was $81 billion.

By 1956 the assessed valuation of property had gone up less than twice to $277 billion, whereas the national income had increased 412 times, to $343 billion.

You see, we are still taxing and providing revenue for our schools from those areas which do not represent the true wealth of America.

Right across the river here in Wood Ridge, N.J., every single boy and girl in that school is on double shift. These are some of the situations now in reference to teachers' salaries.

Hardly any school district this year has been able to raise teachers' salaries.

I just came from New York where the teachers are having great difficulty and even considering drastic steps to call to the attention their deplorable salary conditions and how they can try to get a raise.

In Connecticut, in New Britain, I have a letter here that the school board has decided to drop all kindergartens because they could not finance the kindergarten. They are going to drop this very valuable part of their school system because they cannot finance it.

We are advocating in the American Federation of Teachers, with the help of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, a professional salary schedule which starts at $6,000 for all teachers and goes to $10,000 in 10 or more years.

This we consider to be a professional salary. That kind of salary will attract the kind of people we ought to have. We have hundreds of thousands, the estimate was made here 100,000 unqualified. We say 300,000.

The difficulty is that we do not have enough funds in our Department of Education here in our Government to get all the facts and figures that we need. That department needs a great deal more revenue in order that they can get the figures.

We have a research department, but these figures change so rapidly and it is so difficult, by the time you get a figure it is already out of date.

Therefore, you can't get an exact figure of just how many we are short. But I met in a town in southern Illinois where there were 90 teachers and 60 of them had less than 1 year of college training because of the temporary certificates.

These are never listed. When the superintendent tells you how many they have you never get those in your reports.

All in all, we say that money, additional revenue, is one of the major issues that will cure the deficiencies of American education. These will attract and hold qualified teachers. The extracurricular activities are dumped onto the teacher's back because they do not have enough money to provide additional people who should be doing these things.

Teacher aids are brought in for this purpose and are paid a ridiculously low salary.

We need to have a salary schedule that will attract the finest graduates from our high schools. A survey was made not so long ago that showed that 20 years ago the boys and girls from the graduating class of senior high schools came from the top quarter that went to the teachers colleges but today the greater percent comes from the lower quarter.

This is significant. We cannot stand that in this space age.

So I compliment you, Representative Metcalf, Senator Murray, and I commend this committee for facing up to this problem. The Murray-Metcalf bill is the finest bill which has been introduced. It is realistic and it begins to meet the Nation's needs. It begins to touch upon what is most important, the boy and the girl in the classroom. This we concur in.

We compliment you for supporting this effort and your good work in this committee and we recommend its immediate passage.

I would now like to offer to my colleague, Miss Borchardt, our Washington representative, who has worked with you constantly. I come in from Chicago where our office is.

Mr. BAILEY. Miss Borchardt, do you have any comment to make? Miss BORCHARDT. I should like to submit the statement for the record in the interest of time and to thank you here, as I have thanked you on many occasions, and the members for their continuing efforts. It is discouraging. I should like to point out that we are concerned about meeting the need of the needy now. We think it is most unfortunate to pass over, as some witnesses have, the fact that, well, these people can be taken care of if-we won't go into the question of cost of the debt and the floating of bond issue and so on, but we would like to call attention to the fact that when the income tax was adopted, from then on we see that the people have a very direct reason for saying we are paying directly to the Federal Government and we want to buy back directly services.

Right after the Federal income tax was made a part of our Constitution, after woman's suffrage, you will remember the ShepherdTowner bill was made shortly thereafter a part.

But even before that we had the Vocational Education Act and the first Federal aid bills coming up in Congress. The people wanted direct returns for their money to the Federal Government.

We would also like to point out that there is a little inconsistency in providing money, which we are very happy you did provide, for higher education, but we do think you cannot ignore the fact that unless the children are prepared to participate in the benefits of something like the National Defense Act which we think should be extended far beyond the life now given

Mr. BAILEY. I would suggest that you amend that statement and add to that that there is considerable hypocrisy.

Miss BORCHARDT. You are in Congress. I am on this side asking. We do think seriously we cannot say we start up here, but nothing at the lower level.

It is through the courage and the great moral leadership of men like you who have stuck by the fight. I have been in the mining camps in your State there and I am happy, so happy to see that you are appreciated.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you.

Miss BORCHARDT. It is good to know that good deeds are appreciated.

Mr. BAILEY. Sometimes I have doubts about that.

Miss BORCHARDT. Oh, no; they keep you here, and we appreciate

that.

Thank you very much.

(The statement submitted is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SELMA M. BORCHARDT, VICE PRESIDENT AND WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Gentlemen of the Committee, we want first to express our appreciation to the members of this committee for having helped keep the question of Federal aid for the schools continually before the public. While we have been disappointed from year to year not to have legislation enacted granting Federal aid to the States for elementary and secondary schools, we have watched with interest the devoted and eager concern which a number of the members of this committee have had in the question.

For months, for years in fact, you have heard witnesses testify as to the shortage of classrooms and of professionally qualified teachers throughout the United States. You heard Mr. Peter Schoemann, chairman of the AFL-CIO Committee on Education, emphasize these shortages to you. He told you of the over 140,000 classrooms needed now. Not just new classrooms to take care of the increased school population; we need 65,300 rooms for this purpose. We need 75,200 more classrooms to replace unsanitary, fire risks where children are sent to school today.

He told you also of the almost 100,000 unqualified teachers. You have heard from other witnesses who have emphasized the fact that there has been a relative improvement in educational conditions throughout the country. Some have pointed out to you that the States and local communities have, through their own efforts, improved conditions and this is true. We are very happy to realize that conditions have improved. However, we are deeply concerned over the lack of a planned continuing improvement so sorely needed and over the failure of the Congress to act in a constructive manner to help the States meet the critical needs of today through action which will bring the relief which is greatly needed now. The questions, as we see them, before you now are not whether there is a need for money in order to meet the classroom shortage and recruit the thousands of qualified teachers needed today. I do not think there is a person in this room who would question that need.

We are asking you to recognize the fact that the only equitable way to meet the needs which are so pressing today, is through a program of direct Federal aid to the States and their subdivisions. We are mindful of the various proposals before the Congress for aiding the States. We support the Metcalf bill, H.R. 22, now before this committee because we think it is the best bill now before this committee.

In 1945, it became apparent to all persons working for Federal aid for education, at that time, that a general aid bill could not possibly be enacted. It was then that the American Federation of Teachers proposed that separate bills be introduced to be separately but simultaneouly considered, each on its own merits, presenting the specific conditions which were to be remedied by Federal funds to the States, during a period of critical shortage and need. We proposed legislation granting Federal aid to teachers' salaries; Federal aid for public-school construction; Federal aid for health services for all children; Federal aid for loans and scholarships for advanced study, and finally, Federal aid to help eradicate adult illiteracy. Bills on each of these points were introduced by some of the finest men who have served in our Congress.

Last year, there were groups which felt that Federal aid for school construction and Federal aid for teachers' salaries should be combined because the two were so closely related. There is no question but that we must have qualified teachers if our children are to grow up, equipped to function in a free democratic society. Enough qualified teachers. Enough classrooms with enough qualified teachers. Otherwise the pupil-teacher ratio load is so heavy that teachers cannot teach in mass production style. Only qualified teachers are able today to give the type of instruction which must be given children today. Not more than 30 children at a time. As you have been told by a number of the witnesses, schools simply cannot get qualified teachers unless the teachers are paid a more nearly adequate salary.

Furthermore, the schools cannot hold professionally qualified personnel if the general conditions within the schools, including salaries, are not made worthy of the demands placed on the teachers in the schools. We repeat that we know that the classroom shortage has been reduced materially, but we submit that so long as there are thousands of classrooms needed and thousands of teachers

needed to man the classrooms, the shortage is still acute. It will remain acute until there is enough money to pay teachers a more nearly adequate salary. Last year's average salary for teachers was $4,520; the median salary for beginners was $3,600. We respectfully submit that it is only through Federal aid that the States can meet the crisis.

I would, therefore, direct your attention first to a justification of Federal funds for a program of direct Federal aid. First of all, it is interesting to note that almost immediately after the enactment of the income tax amendment to the Constitution, the people within the States, and not just the States themselves, felt justified in asking for grants through which they, the people, could share directly in the benefits they felt entitled to enjoy, because they had individually paid money into the U.S. Treasury. Today, when the Federal income tax is a very heavy one, the people feel more strongly than ever that they, each one of them, in every community, has a right to share from benefits which come through Federal grants. It was shortly after the adoption of the Federal income tax amendment that a bipartisan approach planned and helped enact the SheppardTowner Act. It was called the "Baby Bill" for through it the Federal Government made available direct grants to help protect the health and welfare of mothers and children. The Vocational Education Act (Smith-Hughes) coming at about the same time was further proof of the feeling of the people that they had a right to share as individuals in services they felt they were buying with their Federal income tax.

When the First World War showed the very great need for improving the Nation's schools and the quality of the teaching being done, the people again looked to the Federal Government for aid. It was then that the active campaign for Federal aid for education was begun. Today, more and more the people are asking for the opportunity to share in the distribution of the funds put into the Federal Government by direct payments from the individual citizen, in each State. It is to be noted that while the people have sought to share in these benefits they have, at the same time, zealously guarded their right to administer the program which these funds made available. This is a principle observed as strongly today as it has been throughout the years.

We emphasize the feeling on the part of the people of their right to share as individuals in benefits which, in a sense, they have directly purchased. This position by the people is in contrast with certain proposals now being frequently proposed in the Congress. There are movements which would seek to give to the States a rebate from the taxes paid from each State. Obviously, a tax paid back to a State loses the dimension of personal service repayment. We would further point out that while all citizens in all the States pay the same scale of taxes under the Federal income tax that the payment by States in no sense affords the individual the right to share equitably in proportion to his payment into the Federal coffers.

We recognize that education is a national responsibility but that the administration of education is a State responsibility. However, the Federal Government must meet its responsibility by effecting an equitable plan of allocation of funds it receives among the States. The State then must administer the funds allocated by the Federal Government in keeping with the broad general purposes for which the funds were allocated, but under State laws. It is only through a program of allocation of Federal funds among the States that educational opportunities for all may be more nearly equalized.

In the Metcalf bill and similar bills which have been introduced by other Members, there is a weighted formula for allocation and distribution of funds which assures an equitable sharing not only among the States, but within the States. The value of a program of grants over a program of loans, even at a low interest rate, lies in the fact that the States which can least afford a greater outlay or a greater commitment for future expenditures (that is, the poorer States) are the States which most of all need the direct grants at this time. We cannot favor a plan which asks all States to purchase bonds with an interest rate, no matter how low, which in effect places a relatively heavier burden on poorer States and incidentally on poorer people, than the program would impose on richer States and richer people. We know that local, State, and Federal taxes in relation to one another need careful study. Labor has long advocated a synchronized Federal, State, and local tax program. We share with many other good citizens indignation over the fact that some States, even richer States, do not exact adequate taxes from their citizens to enable them to maintain good schools. We trust the time is not far distant when a synchronized-Federal, State, and local-tax program, void of loopholes, will be the prevailing law.