Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BURKHART. If it may be filed for the record, there are some parts I will leave out.

Chairman HILL. It may be filed in full for the record, and then you may summarize it.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BURKHART, MEMBER, INDIANA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE INDIANAPOLIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE INDIANA PTA MEMBERS STUDY GROUP ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION, AND LEGISLATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD RIPPLE HIGH SCHOOL PTA

Mr. BURKHART. My name is John Burkhart and I reside at 7031 Washington Boulevard, Indianapolis. I am here as a member of the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce, the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, the Indiana PTA members study group on Federal aid to education, and as legislation chairman of the Broad Ripple High School PTA.

Also, I am a member of the Indiana White House Conference Committee on Education although, of course, I am not speaking for this group since it has not yet completed its work.

More important, I am here as a parent and citizen, interested in education, sensitive, I hope, to the critical years at hand and ahead in our public schools.

No one questions the need for a sound program of public education. No one contends that all children presently have equal educational opportunity or that all areas are financially able to furnish such equality of opportunity.

But we ought not let the gravity of the hour so fill us with panic that we propose and effect solutions inconsistent with our history and our tradition and which are dangerous in the light of our own personal experience and observation.

I am not here to attack the principle of Federal grants-in-aid. You are far more familiar with such arguments than am I. In my opinion they have very little bearing on the issue of Federal Aid to Education.

I have talked with many groups of parents who were typically and sharply divided as to whether, or to what extent, the Federal Government should finance our highways and our hospitals, care for our disabled and our unemployed, generate our power or guarantee our farm prices. But I have always found that once they understood its implications, they were not at all divided in opposing the Federal financing of general education-whether for buildings or operating

costs.

Why?

Because consideration of the program presented by Federal aid proponents leads to these important conclusions:

(1) The goal sought cannot be reached.

(2) The need pictured is exaggerated.

(3) The prescription proposed will kill the patient.

The goal sought is equality of educational opportunity for every boy and girl in the United States.

Our problem is represented by more than 150,000 schools in some 67,000 school districts spread throughout the 48 States and the District.

The only measuring stick proposed and, indeed, the only measuring stick available, is that of money spent. But you can't equate education to dollars any more than you can determine the number of people who will go to heaven from each State by getting a census tabulation of religious expenditures.

In 1951 New York spent $328 per pupil in average daily attendance while for Ohio the figure was $202. Does anyone seriously believe that children of the Empire State are receiving a 50 percent better education than their Buckeye counterparts? Are we to conclude that Massachusetts schools are inferior to those of Montana, or that Missouri's children will lose the race of life to Oklahoma rivals simply because the expenditure statistics so indicate?

Take a peek at teacher salaries. In 1951 the Illinois average was $3,671, that of Mississippi only $1,545. Before you commit the Federal Government to correct this disparity, take a peek, also, at per capita incomes for the two States. However inadequate Mississippi teacher pay, it provided a sum more than twice as large as the average per capita income payments, while Illinois teachers were only 90 percent above the per capita average for their State. It would seem to be a fair inference, then, that financially Mississippi teachers occupy a status in their communities equal if not superior to that enjoyed by Illinois teachers.

If the percentage of male teachers offers any index of the financial attractiveness of teacher salary levels, it is interesting to note that in this respect Mississippi outranks Michigan, Arkansas surpasses California and Connecticut, and West Virginia easily outdistances New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

An interesting measure of educational effectiveness is presented by the United States Office of Education in figures showing the percentage of population of high school age actually enrolled in school. The figures are for 1950. Delaware, No. 1 in per capita income, was only 29th in high school holding power. Nevada, No. 2 in per capita income, was only 28th. Such interesting lesson material ought not to go unlearned or unheeded.

We are compelled, then, to conclude that neither per capita income nor per pupil expenditure offer a measure of educational accomplishment, and that attempts to equalize education by equalizing expenditure is doomed to failure before it is begun.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HILL. The Senator from Illinois.

Senator DOUGLAS. May I ask Mr. Burkhart a question at this point. Is it your belief that the advocates of Federal aid to education want exclusive Federal financing of schools?

Mr. BURKHART. No, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. So that you recognize the advocates of Federal aid merely believe that this is a portion of the financing of schools? Mr. BURKHART. That is right, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. Is it your contention that it is the aim of the advocates of Federal aid for education to have absolute equality in educational opportunity?

Mr. BURKHART. Yes, I think that their expressed aim, is to equalize educational opportunities.

Senator DOUGLAS. I want to make it clear that this is not the aim. The purpose is instead to provide a minimum of educational opportunity below which it is felt no child should fall. The purpose is not to establish absolute equality. That would require Federal financing, exclusive Federal financing, which is not the purpose at all.

Now, this is a very important point. A good many opponents of Federal aid fail to distinguish the point, and I think some of your objections come from this very fact.

Mr. BURKHART. I think, on the other hand, perhaps the measure that you often apply to determine that they are not getting a minimum education doesn't take into account the fact that that money difference doesn't necessarily represent the level of education. I emphasize the money side

Senator DOUGLAS. On school construction we are not insisting that the most expensive types of school construction should necessarily be the standard or minimum in all States or in all communities.

We are simply saying that there should be certain minimum standards for all communities, but that other communities can and will spend more according to their decision, and the rough figure that we used is below the general average, namely $1,000 per child, and even that is not binding in any statute, but that is a rough figure that we use for the purposes of estimation.

That is below the national average, particularly in the advance study Commission report. Probably below the average in Indianapolis. Chairman HILL. You may proceed, sir.

Mr. BURKHART. Any review of the figures available makes it difficult to believe that school needs could be exaggerated. Yet in the sense that such needs are pictured as beyond the capacity of State and local government to meet, they most certainly are exaggerated.

The impression is widespread that the flood of pupils is rapidly outdistancing the necessary expenditures to properly house and educate them. Such a conclusion is not justified by the facts.

The year 1939 saw school construction at its alltime high, up to that date, $468 million; but, by 1952, the figure had grown to $2 billion. Making full allowance for the decline in dollar purchasing power during this period, we can say that school construction doubled while school enrollment increased only slightly.

Chairman HILL. Excuse me. Have you gotten the figures on the increase in school enrollment, Mr. Burkhart?

Mr. BURKHART. There is a dip, and it is just now swinging back up again. I think if you compare the period of 1939 to now, you will find there is not so much change as you might imagine.

In other words, we have had a sharp increase in the past 3 or 4 years, but we had a decrease as a result of the low birthrate earlier. Chairman HILL. And you have seen the overall figure between 1939 and 1954?

Mr. BURKHART. Yes, sir. I don't have it right here, but I have seen that, yes.

Chairman HILL. All right, you might supply that for the record. Mr. BURKHART. I will be glad to.

Chairman HILL. Thank you, sir.

(The following telegram was subsequently received for the record:)

STEWART E. MCCLURE,

INDIANAPOLIS, IND., March 25, 1955.

Staff Director, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

The Senate, Washington, D. C.:

Total public-school enrollment rose from 25.4 million in 1939 to 28.4 million in 1954.

JOHN BURKHART, Indiana State Chamber of Commerce.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Burkhart, is it not also true that there was a very low volume of construction during the thirties because of the depression?

Mr. BURKHART. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. Then following this there was a low volume of construction during the war because of the need to put our resources of men and materials into prosecution of the war, so that, we came out of the war not only with a rapidly growing school population, but also with a tremendous arrearage in school building?

Mr. BURKHART. That is very true, you have anticipated that next paragraph there. I say: True enough this oversimplifies the situation. We need meet not only new enrollments but past building deficits, which is your point, I believe.

The Social Legislation Information Service has released revealing figures which I received only 2 days before I left Indianapolis. It points out that in the past 5 years 5,600,000 additional pupils were enrolled in our public schools but during this same period new classrooms were provided for 6,750,000.

Naturally, some States have been more diligent than others in providing new classrooms. This may reflect differences in deficiency backlogs, earlier recognition of the problem at hand, more aggressive solution of the problem, and so on. But at least the evidence suggests that the wealth of the State has little to do with its performance in this respect.

In the 5-year period, Alabama enrollments went up some 23,000 but this year alone more than 1,000 new classrooms are scheduled for completion. Thus, in 1 year, this State is adding 1 classroom for each 22 new pupils accumulated over 5 years.

Most spectacular is South Carolina. While the 5-year increase in enrollment is only 7,493, the classrooms to be completed this 1 year number 2,200.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Burkhart, isn't that due to the peculiar situation in South Carolina, with the large number of Negro children and the desire of the State administration to provide approximately equal physical facilities so that quite possibly the requirement against segregation would not be applied?

I am not saying this was the sole purpose because there was undoubtedly a desire to improve the school facilities as well as the desire to avoid the antisegregation ruling. But is it not true that there was a great deal of very bad school construction previously in existence in South Carolina?

South Carolina has been making a very strong attempt to replace these old schools with new and better school buildings, isn't that true, both for humanitarian reasons and also to provide equal facilities and

thus strengthen the argument that separate but equal facilities are not a violation of the 14th amendment?

Mr. BURKHART. I think that is a very fair statement and quite true. My point is not why they did it. My point is, here is a State which is one of a half dozen most often cited as being economically unable to solve their problems, and at the same time it is said it can't be done, this year they are building 2,200 new classrooms.

Senator DOUGLAS. Let me make my position clear. I think a heavy burden has been thrown on the taxpayers of South Carolina by this decision of the Supreme Court.

I happen to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court and it has been thrown upon them by the decision of a national body.

Therefore, I think it is the responsibility of those of us who welcome that decision and who live in other States to help bear some of the costs which are being occasioned to these localities and to these States, and I am perfectly willing, and I think the majority of the people of my State are perfectly willing, to help bear the load.

Senator PURTELL. It does show, does it not, Mr. Chairman, that where sufficient motivation exists, this situation can be alleviated to a considerable extent.

Mr. BURKHART. That's right. As a matter of fact, I would have no objection if we picked out 4 or 5 States that had an acute problem and helped them, but I certainly am not in favor of any bill that provides help for 48 States in any respect.

On the other hand, in the District of Columbia this year's new classrooms are in the ratio of 1 for each 340 increase in enrollment over the 5-year period. For Illinois the corresponding ratio is 159 and for Ohio it is 150.

Thus we can see that areas where in the past school construction may have lagged badly, prodigious efforts are now being sustained which are successfully closing the gap.

If we turn to the matter of teachers, here again the picture is not as black as it is so frequently painted. For the United States as a whole, the teacher-pupil ratio actually improved in the 10 years from 1940 to 1950. For Indianapolis, where I have the data complete through the last school year, the teacher-pupil ratio that year stood at its most favorable point in our history.

A final point-we're doing a pretty good job of getting teachers trained for the enrollment surge yet ahead. In the 2-year period from 1951 to 1953, first-time students in teacher colleges increased almost exactly one-fourth, a larger gain than for institutions of higher learning as a whole and much larger than public-school enrollment gains in the same period.

I would not want to leave this section without reference to Indiana's School Survey Commission Report of 1952 because similar studies have been made in most of the States and it is on these studies that the national picture is projected.

According to that report, between 1952-53 and 1957-58, Indianapolis would require a building expenditure of $34 million which, it was said, would exceed the sum that could be raised by a 75-cent cumulative building-fund levy plus the 2-percent bonding limit. Yet, so far Indianapolis has comfortably met its needs with a 30-cent levy and has not exhausted its borrowing power. The estimate of needs

« PreviousContinue »