Page images
PDF
EPUB

Of course, we will be fortunate if we increase our bonding capacity, everybody will be able to vote a little bond that comes along-and there again I want to point out as Dr. Lindman did this morning, that we better be careful we do not go ahead in using our money for fear something will come along that will put them in a bad position in getting as much help as they can.

Chairman HILL. Any further questions?

Senator DOUGLAS. Does not a large part of the problem confronting local schools or the construction of local schools come from the fact that they have to pay the costs, the costs have to be met but that real property does not necessarily bear any relationship to the number of children to be educated?

Mr. ROSE. That is right.

Senator DOUGLAS. The taxable real property, that is.

Mr. ROSE. That is right.

Senator DOUGLAS. And the taxable property pays those costs. And the result is that you get some districts or places where they have large numbers of children but very little taxable property or very little taxable base by way of real property.

Mr. ROSE. That certainly is true. Of course, my own school district does not serve as a good example. I have used it in testimony concerning this other type of legislation, such as 815, and there it does apply. In 1943 we had a taxable base back of each tax dollar of about 5,600 and now it is 1,300, but where you have the bedroom communities, whether they are caused by Federal activity or or by this expansion of cities, you have only the homes there and you have a lot less property back of each child, which is the only base.

Senator DOUGLAS. Is it not true you have in Oklahoma a great many districts where the amount of real property per child is relatively smaller?

Mr. ROSE. Oh, definitely so, Senator.

Senator DOUGLAS. As I understand S. 968, about all it does is to make it easier for the local school districts to borrow and when you borrow it is repaid with interest so you are increasing the burden upon the real property; is that not true?

Mr. ROSE. Especially that would be true if the bond capacity is increased. Of course, that is provided for under the law and we know where that money is coming from. And to add to that that additional amount and if you circumvent the normal pattern of taxation, you might break down peoples' ability to pay at the local level.

Senator DOUGLAS. And it would increase the burden in many districts where a burden already exists?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. And whereas the Federal Government collects its revenue primarily from income taxes and taxes on corporate profits which are after all a form of income-and those are in conformity with ability to pay ; is that not true?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. And as to a Federal grant, while it collects on the basis of ability, the distribution is more on the basis of need, is that not so?

Mr. ROSE. The children, of course that is the basis, you spend the money where the child is.

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you think the Nation has a responsibility to the children, no matter where they are located, or is it exclusively the financial responsibility of the locality or the State?

Mr. ROSE. I think certainly the Nation has the responsibility.
Senator DOUGLAS. Why do you hold that point of view?

Mr. ROSE. Sir?

Senator DOUGLAS. Why do you hold that point of view?

Mr. ROSE. Because I think my children are citizens of the Nation as well as of Midwest, Oklahoma. I think they will make a contribution if they are properly guided and educated and trained and given the philosophy they ought to be given, they will make a contribution, and I am not talking altogether in money, but as a contribution as citizens in the district if they continue to live there, and the Federal Government.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, how would you deal with the person that denies that responsibility?

Mr. ROSE. Well, he of course is entitled to his opinion the same as I am mine.

Senator DOUGLAS. But these that deny that are men of good will, too. How do you deal?

Mr. Rose. I do not think we will find-it is the degree which they will accept that philosophy I have just stated. And now I think that perhaps I would not say that the Federal Government has the responsibility. I think it is a partnership and I think the President made a nice statement when he said it was a partnership.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, what about the fact of interstate migration? I think that in the main the migration is from districts that have a taxable capacity that is low to districts where the taxable capacity is high, and therefore the districts that have the high capacity have the work of educating the kids from districts with the lesser capacity. And if that is so, does the district with the high owe an obligation to provide at least minimum standards for the children from the districts with a lower amount of capacity?

Mr. ROSE. Well, it could be reasoned even this way, Senator Douglas, that it might be cheaper to educate them rather than to have to pay for the result of not having done that, when they become citizensalong the idea, of course, you might say, of a stitch in time saves nine.

Now, we have all gone to the State level and we still see many States being opposed to equalization as between the districts within the State; but that philosophy is pretty well established, and it will take some time to establish the proper pattern as between the States. That is the process we are undertaking now.

Senator DOUGLAS. But do you feel that the States with greater wealth per child or greater income per child available should get better citizens working for it or group of citizens rather than help raise the level of the States where the taxable real property is low?

Mr. ROSE. Well, I believe in Federal assistance to education and I think that school districts—that lends the better vehicle to avoid the controls, and I think it serves to relieve the States in continuing to improve their foundation program and maybe assume more of all that, for a while at least-if they can get the proper buildings in which to operate their maintenance program-and I have not frankly evaluated the formula or the various formulas for distributing equitably

between States. I think this committee is amply capable of assembling information enough to do that, and I have not done it.

Chairman HILL. Any further questions?

(No response.)

Chairman HILL. Mr. Rose, I was very interested in the discussion between you and Senator Douglas and it brings to my mind what a former Senator from your State used to say, and that is, "The children are where the dollars ain't."

Mr. ROSE. That is pretty good.

Chairman HILL. We thank you for coming here and for making a very fine presentation. We appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF LEE COCHRAN, ARCHITECT, MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

Chairman HILL. Mr. Lee Cochran.

Senator DOUGLAS. I may say to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Cochran is a member of a leading firm of school architects who have introduced many valuable innovations in school architecture and are able to construct school buildings which are modern at relatively inexpensive figures.

Chairman HILL. We are certainly glad to have you here, Mr. Cochran, and we appreciate your coming. You may proceed in your own way.

Mr. COCHRAN. Our statement is relatively short and I intend to read from it.

I am Lee Cochran, member of the firm of Perkins & Will, architects, of Chicago, Ill., and a member of the national committee on school buildings of the American Institute of Architects, the only professional society representing the architects of the United States. I have been authorized to speak for the American Institute of Architects on Senate bill S. 968.

Since our profession is primarily responsible for the design and construction of school buildings our remarks will not necessarily deal with matters of finance or problems of needs. This is not to say we are unaware of the problems in either field. These have been ably discussed by others.

We are concerned with anything affecting the efficient functioning of our profession in its part of the process of getting school buildings built. We are not in sympathy with that portion of S. 968 which encourages or makes mandatory the establishment of more agencies. We foresee a considerable waiting period before we as architects will be supervising construction of school buildings financed under title II of the proposed legislation.

Previous testimony has indicated that there will be a not too modest time lapse in setting up such agencies and then the experience of some of our own members with such agencies which have been set up in the States has indicated that after that date has elapsed and the agency has begun to function the backlog which piles up then takes an additional amount of time to process, so there are really two time periods we are concerned with.

I suppose that the lapse of valuable time is inherent in all kinds of administrative machinery which must be set up to administer any law. We make the point that the less of it the better.

Formation of additional agencies always results in additional regulations. Our profession in dealing with the design and construction of school buildings necessarily comes up against regulations all the time.

Chairman HILL. You do not ever make any regulations but you have to live with them.

Mr. COCHRAN. We have to live with them-lots of them.

Current practice in most States typically requires review and approval of plans by the following offices:

The local school board, to begin with; county superintendent of schools; local building departments; State fire marshal and very often the local fire marshal; county and/or State public health departments; a State department of education.

And, that is about the minimum.

In some cases plans must be reviewed and approved by more than twice as many agencies as listed above. I think California is a case in point.

Chairman HILL. How many would you have there?

Mr. COCHRAN. I think Mr. Wright of our committee said there were 15 in the case of the distress districts which had to go through the machinery.

Even with these existing State agencies there can be an excessive waiting period before shovels go into the ground. Each additional agency to which plans must be submitted, and that is our chief concern, believes it has some contribution to make-which often further complicates and delays processes of approval. It is our opinion that another step will not accelerate the work of getting schoolhouses built.

We believe that our best school buildings, and by "best" we mean the most efficient, the most suitable, the most economical that we have built, have been the result of our direct, personal relationship with local school boards. We urge that any Federal-aid program will recognize the value of continuing this relationship, and thereby make it possible for us to do our modest part in this job more efficiently. Chairman HILL. Any questions?

Senator SMITH. Well, it seems to me perfectly clear, Mr. Cochran, and I am wondering whether the State department of education would take the place of this so-called school authority. I think the local school board is probably the place where you have your best contacts than if you had 57 different groups to go to, and that would be the center of gravity, the local school board.

Mr. COCHRAN. That is where we feel the most creative job can be done and as we get away from the locality further and further toward centralized agencies, the chance to do a creative job begins to be muffled by the machinery necessary for us to go through.

Senator DOUGLAS. Is it your opinion that the addition under S. 968 to establish a commissioner of education would affect your dealing with individual programs?

Mr. COCHRAN. We are not quite sure of that from reading the bill but it seems that might be very well possible.

Senator DOUGLAS. Is it your feeling that bureauocratic redtape would decrease the individual initiative and enterprise of the architect and the locality?

Mr. COCHRAN. Well, you have said it better than we can.

Senator DOUGLAS. I am merely taking words used by the other side of the Chair in other connections and applying them to this situation. Senator SMITH. I say in answer to my distinguished friend from Illinois it seems to me the purpose of S. 968 is just to avoid that kind of thing, the whole idea is to decentralize, it is just a little different approach.

Chairman HILL. Any further questions?

Senator MCNAMARA. Mr. Cochran, we have heard the complaint we are building monumental types of buildings these days, in the school districts I am most familiar with around Michigan-for the record would you state whether or not you find that we are eliminating the so-called monumental type of construction or building and going more to the functional type of building?

Mr. COCHRAN. Well, we on the school-building committee of the American Institute of Architects very definitely feel that we have been doing through our profession that very thing and the type of school building you see today is a functional educational tool and is not a monument in the sense of school buildings of 20, 30, 40 years ago. Senator DOUGLAS. I should hope your profession would have some influence on the design of hospital buildings where there is this monumental type also.

Mr. COCHRAN. We will do our best. As a matter of fact, we do some hospitals, too.

Chairman HILL. Any further questions, gentlemen?

(No response.)

Chairman HILL. You have been very kind and very helpful, Mr. Cochran, and we deeply appreciate it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Thank you.

Chairman HILL. Now, the committee will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock to hear Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive secretary, Council of Chief State School Officers, accompanied by Dr. Madeline Remmlein. We will also have some school superintendents from Florida, Washington, Ohio, and California.

Also we will have Miss Selma Borchardt, Washington representative of the American Federation of Teachers here.

We now stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 3:05 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. Friday, February 18, 1955.)

« PreviousContinue »