Page images
PDF
EPUB

within the States. Opinions are mixed among the chief State school officers regarding title 4. They have need for funds in the State Departments of Education of many States, yet some of them hesitate to favor Federal-State matching for State administrative purposes for the limited purposes stated in title 4.

The chief State school officers have had only a brief time, Mr. Chairman, in which to analyze the four titles of this legislation. During the past few days, however, we have received communications from about 40 of them. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert all of these in the record at this point, whatever their attitude toward S. 968.

Chairman HILL. Without objection it is so ordered.

Mr. FULLER. Before doing so, I would like permission to read some of the reactions of the chief State school officers who have sent messages.

I realize that this is an unusual thing to do, but the chief State school officers, although you are going to hear three of them this afternoon, are so tied up with their own State legislatures that they cannot come here and testify. Each one of these statements represents a complete statement from the chief State school officer of that State. I want to read some of them.

This one is from your own State, Alabama, from the State Superintendent of Public Construction, Dr. Austin R. Meadows:

Title 1 not helpful without Federal funds to retire obligations. Alabama interest rates lower than average marketable obligations of United States. Title 2 highly objectionable because it short circuits regularly constituted State educational agencies and is not practical for Alabama. Title three should be amended to be outright grants to State on matching basis with the amount of Federal funds to be at least one billion dollars. Title 4, satisfactory provided no strings are attached.

From Archie W. Ford, commissioner of education in Arkansas:

We believe Eisenhower's proposal for construction aid wholly inadequate. Do not favor the proposal in any form; the wrong approach to the problem entirely. Opposed to separate State authority. Arkansas General Assembly just passed a law designating department of education to handle any and all Federal construction funds for this State. You may quote me as being strongly opposed to the President's proposal.

From J. C. Wright, the State superintendent of Iowa:

Administration's construction bill is highly objectionable. No problems selling bonds in this State if they can legally be offered. Title I could have adverse effect on public offering of bonds here. Would seem to attempt to circumvent legal restrictions on bonded indebtedness, constitutional and statutory. Little assistance seen in bill and would not give help where needed. Titles I, II, and III quite objectionable and unsatisfactory. Title IV might be of some benefit. If Federal funds for construction are provided there should be a minimum of Federal control. Funds should be channeled from United States Office of Education through Iowa State Board of Public Instruction to be distributed to districts within the State according to a State plan which recognizes need and the efficient organization of local districts.

From Adel F. Throckmorton, superintendent of public instruction, Topeka, Kans.:

Tentative position Kansas Department of Education on S. 968. Title I: Kansas districts have no difficulty marketing bonds at average rates below 3% percent. Title 2: Contrary Kansas philosophy. Federal control implied. Critical areas need financial resources rather than additional credit. Object to school building under control noneducational agency. Title III: Qualifies districts to meet re

quirements of title I and title II which will not materially help Kansas schools. Title IV: With broadened scope and removal implied Federal controls provides excellent approach to building problems. Letter follows.

From Herbert G. Espy, State commissioner of education of Maine: Appreciate your inquiry regarding our evaluation of School Construction Assistance Act of 1955 if intent is to aid and accelerate construction of school buildings in our State. We find very little in title I, title II, and title III which promises any substantial improvement for schools in the State of Maine. The provisions in title IV would be beneficial to our State. Most communities in the State of Maine are not chiefly in need of more encouragement to borrow or more credit against which to borrow mere encouragement to increase borrowings will not substantially help Maine to build more school buildings. What will help most Maine communities to build more school buildings is money even if more credit and stimulation of borrowing were desirable we regard the arrangements provided as being unduly cumbersome for employment in this State. Our experience with complying with the legalistic technicalities of bond selling does not encourage the extension of that type of school financing for small rural communities. If the Congress intends to provide substantial help for the construction of school buildings in Maine we would urge more attention to the Kearns or Hill bill. Our need for more and better school housing is acute and can be expected to become increasingly serious. It is the judgment of our men who are most closely associated with Maine experience in school building for some years that titles I, II, and III in the Senate bill 968 will contribute little to the solution of school building problems in the majority of Maine communities.

And he followed that with a letter which I would like also to enter into the record because it raises a few additional points.

The letter above-referred to is as follows:

I have already sent you a wire saying very similar things. Here are some more in a letter.

It would appear to us that the provisions in Senate bill 968 which are most likely to be helpful in the State of Maine are the provisions under title IV.

With respect to titles I, II, and III, however, we have little reason to believe that enactment by the Congress would have any substantial effect to facilitate the provision of needed school buildings. The problem in our State is not a problem of credit; it is a problem of money. As far as we know, our people do not desire to have their municipalities or their State incur large indebtedness. For the most part their credit is now relatively good, and they can borrow money at interest rates which would provide little warrant for the pertinent provisions in the bill.

Our experience with the Maine School Building Authority, and with the need to require applicant communities to comply with the legal expectations of bond lawyers leads us to believe that the arrangements proposed in Senate bill 968 would be rather frustratingly cumbersome, to say the least. (We realize that in large metropolitan areas, where large-scale debt service arrangements are routine and where experienced specialists are available, the arrangement proposed in this bill could be managed more efficiently. But in many of our small, rural communities the proposed arrangements would be unduly time-consuming and difficult.) If I may make a general comment, I would like to say that I believe that the bills known as the Kearns bill and the Hill bill could be counted upon to accomplish a great deal more in the actual construction of needed schoolhouses in our State.

I realize that it is an extremely difficult matter to develop legislation which will be constructive and helpful in the varied conditions which we have in our country. However, I am inclined to think that, in our State particularly, the provisions of titles I, II, and III of Senate bill 968 should not be counted upon to accomplish a great deal.

From Hubert Wheeler, State commissioner of education, Jefferson City, Mo.:

Title I: We have no problem in Missouri on this point. Practically all bond issues are selling at lower rates of interest than that suggested by the Government.

Title II Would require legislation establishing school building agency with necessary powers to implement proposed legislation. Title III would require en

abling legislation to authorize State aid to allocate construction aid to district; title III is only portion of proposed law that would be of any significant value to State of Missouri. Amount proposed in bill totally inadequate. Hill or Kearns bill far more appropriate for Missouri. Title IV appears to deviate from our policy of State-local district cooperation. With present program, seems unnecessary. If S. 968 were passed, might need such title.

From Mary Condon, State superintendent of public instruction, Helena, Mont.:

Opposed to all four titles this bill utterly useless to Montana.

From F. B. Decker, commissioner of education, Lincoln, Nebr.:

Have discussed administration's bill with governor. Both convinced Nebraska could not qualify. See no particular need for Federal aid if States do all in their power to meet building shortage.

I might say at that point that two of the telegrams and letters 1 have received oppose all Federal aid. The others favor Federal aid, but all of the advices that I have had from every chief State school officer in the United States oppose Senate bill 968.

Senator GOLDWATER. Which two States oppose Federal aid?

Mr. FULLER. Indiana and Nebraska in these communications.
Senator GOLDWATER. I want to congratulate them.

Mr. FULLER. From the State commissioner of education of New Hampshire, Austin J. McCaffrey :

Administration construction bill appears to be of little help to New Hampshire. Title I does not appeal; oppose titles II and III; title IV acceptable, but not of prime interest. Bill poor substitute for Kearns or Hill bill-inadequate to compete with highway matching proposal.

From the State superintendent of North Carolina, Charles Carroll: Title I would have to be amended far beyond anything I foresee to have slightest appeal. Titles II and III are out.

I think when they say "out" in North Carolina they mean "out." Title IV, I value only if grant is available by July next for continuing program provided under title I of Public Law 815. I favor action that provides specific appropration to each State, stimulates local effort, and does it soon.

From the legislative chairman of the Council of Chief State School Officers, who is also the State superintendent of public instruction of Oklahoma, Oliver Hodge:

I have read Senate bill 968. I believe title I would be of very little help to Oklahoma; title II violates council policies and has too much Federal control. Doubtful if Oklahoma would be able or willing to qualify under title II. Title III inadequate and too much Federal control and too complex. Title IV has good possibilities.

From the acting State superintendent of public instruction of Pennsylvania, Ralph C. Swan:

We approve title 1 if amended to make possible 100 0/0 purchase and removal of one-half of 10/0 extra interest. Title II has no value for Pennsylvania. Title III inadequate. Would suggest Kearns or Hill bill as substitute. We approve title IV. We oppose excessive controls contained in this bill.

From the State commissioner of education of Rhode Island, Michael F. Walsh:

Generally agree with your evaluation of the administration's construction bill. Title I not applicable in Rhode Island. No bonds issued recently beyond 2.75 percent. Title II abhorrent to Yankee tradition. Title III concept sound but proposed implementation not feasible. Assistance from title IV in long-term planning desirable but of minor economic relevance to the major problem.

From the State superintendent of South Dakota, Harold S. Free

man:

Titles I, II, and III will not help South Dakota. Title IV could not be of help for another 2 years as no money would be available from State before that time due to legislative procedures. Believe it would help us if and when we had State funds available for matching.

From Quill E. Cope, the State commissioner of education in Tennessee:

Staff of State department of education has examined carefully proposed S. 968 and find all four titles understandable. It is complex, cumbersome, and full of redtape. If Federal aid for school-building construction is to be of value in Tennessee it will have to be grants-in-aid administered through the State educational agency to local units on a matching basis which can be financed from State appropriation of $6,300,000 for capital outlay and from local sources. The Hill bill or Kearns-Bailey proposal more nearly meet our needs. S. 968 will confuse people into thinking they have a building program when it would mean little or nothing to our State. Hope you will withhold S. 968 and work for passage of 1 of the other 2 above bills which have been proposed.

From the green State of Vermont, A. John Holden, Jr., commissioner of education:

I have given considerable study to S. 968, the School Construction Assistance Act of 1955, introduced by Senator Smith of New Jersey, and wish to pass on to you my impressions of its effect in Vermont.

I shall not comment on the questionable policies and cumbersome procedures involved, because these are well enough known to you. Aside from these objections, I see no way in which titles I, II, and III would be of any use to us here in Vermont. As far as we know, Vermont school districts could not qualify for the benefits of title I under section 104 (a). The obligations of Vermont school districts have been selling for interest rates ranging from 1.9 percent to slightly over 2.5 percent. The privileges of title I would therefore be of no use to them. As for title II, Vermont has not had nor has it contemplated establishing a State school-building agency to build schools for rental to local districts. Three years ago, careful study of State school-building aid policy was made by a special committee appointed by the State board of education. The idea that a State school-building agency should be established to provide buildings for rental and ultimate ownership by local districts was considered and rejected. Furthermore, it is clear that the rentals as provided in section 209 (d) of this bill would be unnecessarily high compared to the charges for direct borrowing by the local school districts.

Title III, correspondingly, would be of no use to Vermont school districts. They could not qualify under section 303 (1).

Title IV might be useful if Federal money could be used to match (and thereby expand) continuing services already supplied to an inadequate degree by the department through its regular budget.

Trusting this information will be of use to you I am, with kind personal regards,

Sincerely,

A. JOHN HOLDEN, Jr., Commissioner of Education.

From Velma Linford, Wyoming State superintendent of public education:

Cannot express much enthusiasm for S. 968 from Wyoming viewpoint. My opinion should be less complex and more direct approach.

I have here a rather lengthy letter from the director of education of Guam, Mr. Chairman, which I shall not read, a paragraph from which I would like to have entered in the record. He says that all the school buildings there were destroyed and they have been able to build only one a year. They are now on their own in Guam, it is no longer under the Navy. They want to be included in any aid bill that is passed by the Congress.

Chairman HILL. That will go in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

EDGAR FULLER,

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Agana, Guam, February 7, 1955.

Executive Secretary, Council of Chief State School Officers and
Independent Organizations,

DEAR ED:

Washington 6, D. C.

All of the school buildings were destroyed during the war. The Government of Guam has honestly and conscientiously endeavored to rebuild, and has done so at the rate of one building a year. But with declining income and very rapidly expanding enrollment, it is practically impossible to rebuild let alone build new buildings for the increased enrollment.

*

Sincerely yours,

John,

JOHN S. HAITEMA,

Director of Education, Department of Education. Mr. FULLER. From Clayton J. Chamberlin, the commissioner of education of Hawaii:

Share your views re S. 968. Attorney general states title II probably unconstitutional here.

From George E. Watson, the State superintendent of public instruction of Wisconsin. I am going to omit a part of that because it is quite long, but I do think I ought to read some paragraphs:

As it

If the interest rate which would qualify local district obligations were materially reduced, this title I might have real significance to Wisconsin. appears in S. 968 it is not believed it would be effective in Wisconsin.

That is what I said in my first testimony.

Title II authorizes Federal support, with State participation, of obligations issued by State school building authorities. There is serious constitutional question in Wisconsin whether the State as such can organize or participate in a building authority. Certainly if such legality were to be ultimately established, the procedure of amortization with title passing at the end thereof would require a drastic revision of our State aid laws. Presently no State aid may be paid with capital outlay or debt retirement forming a portion of the basis of the calculation of State aids. If all legal barriers were overcome, this study of title II would still indicate it to be a cumbersome procedure of limited advantage.

Title III authorizes grants to school districts who cannot proceed under either title I or title II because of "lack of economic capacity." If this interpretation is correct, Wisconsin would be unable to participate not because of "lack of economic capacity," but rather because of economic ability in title I or legal or constitutional questions in title II. Hence, no direct grants would be available to Wisconsin under title III.

Title IV authorizes grants to States to assist them in meeting the administrative costs of developing State programs to overcome local financing of school construction. Funds so authorized would be restricted to new programs and would require matching by State funds.

I would like to enter the letter in the record. I have read only part of it.

« PreviousContinue »