However, in the meantime, our children's needs in every State must be met now. Matching programs and programs based on bond issues simply are not just, and cannot actually help equalize educational opportunities among the States. We would further emphasize that many States and many local communities have reached the statutory limit on their borrowing power and could not avail themselves of a Federal benefit underwriting further bond issues. We would next point out that the Federal Government has given far more generously to higher education than it has to the States for the maintenance and proper conduct of elementary and secondary schools. We are delighted that the Congress has seen fit to give money for aid to higher institutions of learning. We hope they give more. We are worried when we find Members of the Congress not as interested in a college housing program, for example, as is necessary. Incidentally, we are delighted that Congress in giving aid for college instruction programs has recognized the need in at least one field of the basic importance of the humanities, in a well-rounded education program. We share, with the Congress, an appreciation as to the national defense value in time of peace and in time of a threat to our national security for the development of scientific knowledge and research. We trust that more money will be given to the colleges not only for improving scientific knowledge but also for nontechnical education in the liberal arts and the fine arts. However, we would point out that a national program which gives proportionately far more for higher education than it does for elementary and secondary education is not a sound program, unless and until the elementary and secondary schools of our country are equipped with qualified professional personnel to train children and youth to take full advantage of a college education. And further we would submit that the opportunity of all properly qualified youth to go to college should be broadly available. However, as it is by our national neglect of the elementary and secondary school we are, at a great loss in human values, neglecting a generation which we should be equipping to enter college. Frankly, it seems ridiculous that Congress should appropriate thousands of dollars for training in guidance and counseling programs, and fail to appropriate money to assure classroom teachers for the children for whom they are supplying guidance and counseling programs. We would further point out that even in the so-called scholarship program enacted into law by the Congress last year there were not scholarships made available to help youth get his college training. We are glad that loans were made available. We trust that more loans and some scholarships will be made available. However, we would emphasize that as further aid is allowed for the college student, a program which we heartily endorse, that full attention should be given to the fact that children and youth must be prepared for college in safe schools manned by professionally qualified teachers before they can take advantage of college training. We would finally urge that the action granting aid to the elementary and secondary schools be given the highest priority for through granting such aid now, the highest ideals and traditions of our country can best be served. Each year's delay deepens the crisis, and penalizes our children and our country. We plead for action now. I would like to have permission to file with this statement communications I have received from a number of our locals. Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much. Your full statement will appear in the record, without objection. Miss BORCHARDT. Thank you. Mr. BAILEY. This ends our formal hearings. We will keep the record open until Friday of next week in case there is anyone who wants to submit material for inclusion in the record. If they are germane to the question Mr. McCord, you may prepare them for inclusion in the record. I know of some that are on their way in now. The fact of the matter is they should have been here today from the State school officials of my own State of West Virginia. Thank you, Doctor, very much. Mr. MEGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (Thereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearings were concluded.) APPENDIX (Pursuant to the direction of the chairman, the following documents are hereby made a part of the printed record :) Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Chairman, Committee on General Education, House of Representatives, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am aware that the Murray-Metcalf bill provides for distribution of funds to the States on the basis of pupil population—that is, children of normally accepted school age. A schoolman in my district has written to suggest that the bill be amended, and the committee consider the allocation of support funds to adult education on the high school and (possibly) junior college level. Such amendment would logically, of course, include the proviso that the work engaged in by the adults so included by courses leading to high school (or higher) diplomas, and not of the vocational retraining type, since there are other programs supporting this type of training. Such an amendment would secure maximum use of school facilities in the community. In addition, it would provide the means for many adults to complete the high school education most needed today in industry and business, thus benefit both the individuals and the community, as well as the national economy. I respectfully request the committee to study the proposed amendment and additionally I would appreciate your views on such a proposal. Very sincerely, CLEM MILLER. STATEMENT BY HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN ON EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1959 Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the courtesy of this committee in allowing me to present my views on H.R. 3904, the bill which I introduced authorizing Federal assistance in financing an expanded program of school construction and in providing increased amounts for teachers' salaries. I thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss the merits of this bill. The need for an expanded program of school construction was acknowledged in this great country well before the advent of the first Soviet sputnik. It is a belated product of lack of construction during World War II and of the phenomenal postwar population increase. Bills for this purpose, as we all know, have been before the past several Congresses. H.R. 3904 which provides for Federal assistance for school construction is not a sputnik emergency measure. We would be confronted with the need to find ways of adequately coping with the problem of classroom shortages if the Soviets had never even exploded their satellites. Despite construction in the past few years by State and community effort, it is doubtful that the job of eliminating the backlog of needed classrooms and of building the necessary new ones can be accomplished solely through these facilities. For instance, there was a downward trend in school construction last year of almost 3,000 classrooms compared to 1957. Without a radical revision of this trend, our backlog of school building needs may not be wiped out until 1984, a timelag we cannot afford. Furthermore, the condition of overcrowded classrooms in our growing urban centers where 40 percent of all elementary pupils try to learn in classes of 35 and over, compared to the desirable ratio of 25 pupils to 1 teacher, is not being alleviated. Last year, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. It fell far short of our clear national need but at least it was the start of a catch-up program whose logical next step is the enactment of a limited-duration, emergency measure such as the Education Assistance Act which I am proposing. By investing under 1 percent of this year's proposed Federal budget for each of the next 5 years, more than $10 billion in Federal, State and local expenditures for public education could be generated under this bill. New classrooms could be constructed at the rate of 84,000 (at an average estimated cost of $40,000 per classroom) per year, and thus eliminate the current backlog of over 140,000, by the end of the program in 1964. Under present plans, 68,440 classrooms are to be built this year with 23 States reporting plans to build fewer classrooms than they did during 1957-58; however, the grand total is merely sufficient to meet the new classroom requirements of 65,300 for excess enrollment, to say nothing of the 75,200 new rooms needed to replace obsolete classrooms. H.R. 3904 provides for the appropriation of not to exceed $400 million during each of the next five fiscal years commencing July 1, 1959, for allotment to the States on a dollar for dollar basis as grants for school construction. The grants would be made to State educational agencies, and the formula in H.R. 3904 is similar but no identical to the one incorporated in the "School Assistance Act of 1957." H.R. 3904 would allocate $400 million in grants among the States half on the basis of relative school-age population and half on the basis of a "need" formula and takes into account each State's school-age population, financial ability and actual expenditures to meet school needs. Under the new method of calculating the "school effort index", however, States which shut down schools to avoid obeying court orders to desegregate might receive reduced allotments. In figuring the index, States are not allowed to count moneys earmarked for school expenditures, but only that which is actually spent. Where the school effort index falls below the national average indicating that the State is not exerting sufficient effort, its original allotment will be lowered and the total reduction reassigned proportionately among other States. Alternate methods of financing new school construction are also included in H.R. 3904. Title II authorizes the Commissioner of Education to purchase up to a total of $750 million over a 5-year period in community school bonds to assist localities which cannot obtain financing from other sources on reasonable terms. For rapidly expanding suburban areas where school construction is desperately needed, title III of H.R. 3904 would provide $150 million to share equally with the States the cost of establishing and maintaining a reserve fund equal to one year's payment of principal and interest on bond issues by State educational agencies to build schools. If this money is fully utilized, approximately $6 billion in such bonds could be issued. Another grave problem is that of depressingly low pay standards for teachers. These are aproximately 37 percent under the average income in 17 professions and, at the start, generally average $2,000 a year less than the pay received by beginning engineers. In such a situation, how can an adequate number of talented college graduates be persuaded to enter the teaching field, and then to stay if at the end of 10 years, their pay increase averages only one-third that in the sales profession and less than half as much given accountants? H.R. 3904 proposes the expenditure of $950 million to supplement teachers' pay during the program in recognition of the fact that to end half-day sessions, hire new teachers for the more than 1 million new pupils enrolling each year, and to raise salaries commensurate to that paid qualified personnel in other professions, we must increase total amounts paid teachers to $14 billion by 1965. Even though States and localities exert a maximum effort, it appears most unlikely that they can maintain more than the status quo without outside help. Mr. Chairman, for these two needed programs, H.R. 3904 would anticipate grant expenditures aggregating a maximum of $2,950 million by the Federal Government over the entire 5-year period; this amount is equivalent to 0.014 percent of our estimated gross national product for this year. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3904 would provide authorizations over a 5-year period as follows: (a) Grants to be appropriated at the rate of $400 million annually on a matching basis to States for school construction in communities under priorities established by State educational agencies; (b) Loan funds up to an aggregate of $750 million for the purchase of school construction bonds issued by communities unable to find markets for them at reasonable interest rates; (c) Federal advances not to exceed a total of $150 million to back the credit of State agencies issuing bonds to finance schools for local school districts; and (d) Grant expenditures to States aggregating $950 million for a 5-year program to supplement the salaries of qualified teachers; States may submit plans to include special salary supplementation for teachers of science and mathematics. The enactment of a program as proposed by H.R. 3904 would not lead to Federal domination and control of public school education in this country. It provides for a temporary, limited program to alleviate two desperate conditions which our public school system is facing today. Its purpose is not to negate the fundamental responsibility of the State and local governments for education. Rather, it recognizes that in this period of need, Federal assistance will enable them to cope with their urgent school problems. At the end of the 5-year period, local school systems should be substantially healthier and in far better condition than today to carry on their great responsibilities. The enactment of such a bill would give American education a tremendous boost toward meeting the challenge which it must face in the years ahead. STATEMENT BY HON. CHARLES O. PORTER Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee on General Education, it is a privilege for me to appear before you to speak on behalf of the need for legislation at the Federal level to help districts and States meet the need for more classrooms and more teachers. This concern has prompted scores of men and women in my district to write to me. Most of them feel it is time that the Fderal Government stepped in and helped resolve the dilemma of too few schools and too few teachers for too many pupils. The members of Oregon's Senate and House of Representatives this year have voted in favor of asking Congress to provide Federal aid to education. Legislative chairmen of many teacher groups have urged passage of legislation resolving the current need. Their comments are brief and to the point, as mine will be today. These men and women who support Federal aid to education generally support the Murray-Metcalf bill which this committee is considering. It is my opinion that legislation of this type is necessary and long overdue. I can appreciate the feeling of some people that this sort of legislation improperly enacted could open the dor to Federal control where it ought not to exist. As I tell my constituents who express this fear, it is part of the work of the committee considering this proposal to make sure this does not occur. I hope this subcommitee and the full committee can report a bill which will be the first of a series of steps to help our Nation face more capably the growing challenge of the expanding Communist world. There are urgent and immediate demands facing education today. These demands can be glossed over or even set aside for another year, but each time this occurs the enemies of the Western World have drawn the noose a little tighter around our throats. There is no more important problem in our Nation and the world than that we educate and utilize our young people. Educational experts estimate we should have 125,000 more classrooms this year. The number will more than double in the next 5 years. A scarcity of teachers also confronts us, and this year's shortage of 135,000 teachers is expected to increase considerably. In closing I wish to thank the committee for letting me appear before it and I request permission to include in the hearing record a copy of a letter I received last month from Principal Keith A. Wade of the Coos Bay Public Schols, which discusses the problems now before the committee. Thank you. |