In the case of a school district which had reached its legal bonding capacity, the district could become eligible for title III aid either through: (1) Establishment of a State school-building agency under title II; or (2) Establishment of a comparable State agency, irrespective of the provisions of title II; or (3) Establishment of a local agency (with authority to rent a school to the district) which would have separate legal borrowing authority and could apply under titles I and III; or (4) Revision of the percentage debt limits imposed by the State; or (5) Basing of debt limits on full value rather than assessed value (as was done in New York State without increasing assessments); or (6) Increasing assessments on which debt limits are based. In conclusion, you will see that for districts having additional legal bonding capacity at this time, there is under title III of S. 968 no requirement of establishment of a State school-building agency under title II, and that for districts without such legal bonding capacity at this time there are several alternatives available, other than establishment of a State school-building agency under title II, by which the school district can become eligible for aid under title III. Sincerely yours, ROSWELL B. PERKINS, Chairman HILL. Senator Allott, I believe when we recessed for lunch, you had some questions. Senator ALLOTT. Yes, but I believe Dr. Fuller was about to complete his statement. I would like to wait until he completes it. Chairman HILL. Dr. Fuller, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF EDGAR FULLER-Resumed Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, at the conclusion of the hearings this morning, I had reached the point where I had placed in the record statements from a large majority of the Chief State School Officers of the United States and I had intended, at that time, to make an explanation of how those statements were obtained. I believe the President's message and the bill came out together on February 8, on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning we were able to get copies of the bill and copies of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's explanation of the bill, about 8 or 10 pages in length, and we sent those explanations and the bill itself, without comment to all the chief State school officers on Wednesday morning. That same morning I sent a very short straight telegram to reach chief State school officers after consulting with President Bailey and the chairman of the legislative committee, Superintendent Hodges of Oklahoma, telling them that the president and the chairman of the legislative committee had suggested that they refrain from public announcement until an analysis of the bill was possible. That was not done by all chief State school officers. Then for the next 3 days, working with all the facilities that we have at our command, we tried to make an analysis of the bill. We assumed, as I said here before, I think, a nonpartisan and I know a bipartisan attitude. We are professional people. We want to help the situation. We belong to all political parties. We have all the range of viewpoints in a political sense that you could find among the governors of the States or among the Members of Congress. On Friday night, after 3 days of constant study and consultation on the bill, I sent a night telegram of about 100 words calling to the attention of the Chief State school officers the policies of the Council of the Chief State school officers they apply to this bill and asking them if they would react to all four titles. I asked them to reply by telegram. (See letter, p. 257.) That was what happened. That was what produced the replies which I placed in the record this morning. I want to make just one brief comment so there won't be any misunderstanding about that. The chief State school officers of the United States employ two people in Washington, myself and my administrative secretary. That is the complete office. We have no connection with the National Education Association or any other group. We are completely independent. The Chief State school officers of the United States are constitutional State officials belonging to all parties, belonging to political parties of various viewpoints. Gentlemen, they are the most independent 48 people I know. If anybody thinks they can make a State chief school officer say something he does not want to say, they are wrong and I can testify from long experience that that is true. Here is what happened in the States when the chief State's school officers had these bills and had the Federal explanation of these bills. They sent them to their staffs in their departments, and they set them to work, sometimes 4 or 5 or 6 people, analyzing the bill and the explanation of the bill, and these replies came as a result of those analyses in the States. I just want to make clear the process by which these communications were received. It has been a privilege to testify before your committee, Mr. Chairman. Hearings such as this have been examining school-constructionaid bills for a number of years both in the House and in the Senate. Meanwhile, the condition of the school plant has become worse. If present Federal grant-in-aid trends continue, the schools will more and more become financial orphans in comparison with other public services. They will remain financial orphans until our Congress moves to place schools in a situation—I mean concerning physical facilitiescomparable with highways and other physical facilities which draw away State funds through matching grants. Chairman HILL. May I ask you a question there? I take it that as the executive secretary of your association that you have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the different States, educationally. Dr. FULLER. I think I have a fairly good idea. Chairman HILL. Have you any illustration of any competition that has been taking place in the effort to secure funds for schools and the effort to secure funds for highways and other such things? Dr. FULLER. You just heard the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Payne. Early last week I was in Bethel, Maine, at a meeting of the local superintendents of the three northern New England States with the State officials for education. At an evening meeting a week ago Monday the administrative assistant to the new governor of Maine, Governor Muskie, came down to that conference to discuss with the administrators there the fiscal situation of education in Maine. He said the governor had a budget of his own. This budget called for somewhat increased expenditures in Maine so that increases in cost caused by the number of children to educate, the increases that are natural in a growing State would be cared for, and he recommended that increased budget which would require either higher taxes or new taxes. But Governor Muskie is well acquainted with the legislature in Maine and being a realistic sort of chap, he thought that perhaps he would have to take the State taxes as they were collected this year and allocate them in similar amounts for next year. He said that in order to keep the services at the present level an additional one million or two million dollars-I forget the exact figure, and it doesn't matter here— would be required. Then this administrative assistant to the governor who had been wrestling with budget problems said that they had looked around to see where they could cut off a million or a million and a half or two million dollars and thus balance the Maine budget if the legislature should refuse to raise taxes. He said there is a cluster of little departments in the State government. They are small. Taken altogether they spend a little more than 20 percent of the State of Maine budget. He said they went from one of those departments to another and they couldn't find any place that hadn't been economized on pretty hard before. These are small and weak departments and you can just imagine that they had taken the brunt of economy year after year, and he said they couldn't save any money on those small departments of the State government. Now after you took out that 20 percent of the State budget, he said, they found nearly 80 percent of the State budget of Maine was spent by 3 large departments of the State government. Those three departments were institutions, public assistance and health, and education. Then they had a team that went to every State institution, the teachers colleges, the penitentiary, the institution for the mentally ill, and other institutions supported by the State, and they dodged the falling plaster, so to speak, and looked around, and they found that conditions there in most of those institutions were pretty bad. They felt that honestly they couldn't save more than a very few dollars at best from the institutional budget and still maintain the services under the increasing loads in those institutions the teachers colleges, with more people trying to prepare for teaching, and the rest. Then they had two departments left from which to save, so they looked first at public assistance and health. They found for every $1 that they could save out of that department, they would lose $2 or $3 down in the local Maine community because of the Federal matching grants which were prevalent in those fields. The said we couldn't bring ourselves to cut off $1 and then cause Bethel and other towns to lose $2.25 or some such amount which included both Federal and State funds. So they said there was only one last place to cut, and that was the department of education. Education had no matching grants. Therefore, they recommended that all of this saving be taken from the education budget. That is what would happen in times of depression everywhere. Let me give you the other side-what happens in times of prosperity. You have $885 million in cash this year for matching grants for States for the construction of highways. It is matched about 50-50. Three of the sections I believe are 50-50 and one 60-40. If that amount is increased it means that the Federal Government will be dangling Federal money before the State legislatures to get increased State appropriations to match Federal funds to build roads. They can get $2 worth of roads for every $1 worth of schools by spending exactly the same amount of their own money. Until you put education for physical facilities on a comparable basis with these other physical facilities, there is a condition which makes it impossible for education to get more funds at the State level. I have illustrated it from Maine as the sort of thing that would happen in a depression. I could illustrate it repeatedly where the legislature would rather have $2 million worth of roads than $1 million worth of schools. I think that is the situation, which combined with a third point which I shall mention, is the most serious thing we face in America in regard to education today. This administration bill (S. 968) would cast the schools back on the local real estate tax and keep them there. That tax is inadequate. It is antiquated. It is tied up in legal technicalities. You don't ask hospitals, and you don't ask roads, and you don't ask any other major services that I know of-many servicesyou do not ask them to stay on the local real estate taxes. If the effort of the local districts and the States could be expanded so that you could have enough schools, why couldn't the same thing apply to roads? Why couldn't the same thing apply to all these other grants-in-aid? We say we are discriminated against. We think there is Federal discrimination against education in the field of grants-in-aid for physical facilities. I don't want to go further unless the chairman has another question, but we think that S. 968 would relegate the schools to an untenable tax source for future years, and that it would perpetuate the fiscal discriminations under which education labors at the present time. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you, Mr. Chairman. We have great confidence in you and what the members of your committee will do. Chairman HILL. Any questions, gentlemen? Senator ALLOTT. Yes. Dr. Fuller, referring to some statement you made a few moments ago do you have the statement on the wire you sent to your members with you? Dr. FULLER. I don't have it with me, but I will be glad to furnish it for the record. Senator ALLOTT. Will you furnish it for the record? Dr. FULLER. I will be glad to. (The document referred to is as follows:) COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, Mr. STEWART MCCLURE, Chief Clerk, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. MCCLURE: Enclosed is a copy of the telegram sent to the chief State school officers on February 11 which I promised to place in the record of the hearings on S. 968. I am also enclosing another telegram from the Commissioner of Education of New York which I would like to have entered in the record along with the others. There was one other item I promised to get into the record. It concerned the relative pace of school building construction in Pennsylvania, compared with other States. This has not been easy to get but I would suggest that the following be entered in the record: "The information asked for can be computed from the following two tables which are taken from 'Advance Estimates of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools for the School Year 1954-55.' "The value of school buildings constructed in a year has no meaning without considering the size of the State. These tables show both the pupil population and the amount of construction in terms of dollars. Putting the amount of construction and the number of pupils together, some of the results are as follows: The per pupil value of construction for the United States was $73 per year per pupil. It was $103 in Pennsylvania, $103 in Maryland, $117 in California, $97 in Illinois, $96 in South Carolina, $74 in Florida, etc. It is interesting to note that in the other three States where there are State school building authorities, the figure was $20 per pupil per year for Maine, $28 per pupil per year for Georgia and $27 per pupil per year for Indiana. It is also interesting to note that the Pennsylvania cost is approximately $18 per square foot, whereas the cost in California is $12 and the cost in South Carolina $9 to $10. 9B and 10.)" (Tables I am glad to be able to furnish this information for the record and assure you that I shall be willing to assist you further in any way possible. Cordially yours, EDGAR FULLER, Executive Secretary. FEBRUARY 11, 1955. Following is evaluation administration's construction bill sent to you. Title I may be salvaged and made more useful through amendments. Title II highly objectionable. Violates council policies. Doubtful constitutionality in many States. High cost, excessive Federal controls, cumbersome procedures and little real assistance. General attitude educational groups strongly negative. Title III also contrary council policies and inadequate. Excessive Federal controls, complex procedures, red tape. Suggest substitution Kearns or Hill bill for titles II and III. Title IV presents separate problem not necessarily connected with above. Do you favor title IV? Washington, D. C. Re administration's construction bill title I appears useless to New York State since school districts have been able to sell bonds at reasonable rates. Doubt New York State would take advantage of title II, too cumbersome. Believe State can meet building needs more efficiently and more economically in other ways. Doubt any district in New York State would be eligible for aid under title III. No objection to title IV but question whether New York State would take advantage of it. Temporary State commission on school finances now studying school building problems in this State. In summary, plan outline in administration's bill does not offer solution to school building needs in New York State. L. A. WILSON, Commissioner of Education, New York State Education Department. |