public funds direct to the schools. In most cases where public funds are used, it is either to pay for books that are used in all the schools, or for transportation of the children to all schools. Now, would you make a difference as to that?

Miss WALSH, I would like to make a difference, state our position in connection with that. Although I understand that many States do permit financial aid to nonpublic schools for more than the purposes you have mentioned

Senator ELLENDER. Do you know how many there are?
Miss WALSH. I cannot give you the figure.

Senator ELLENDER. Well, I understand there are one or two.

Miss WALSH. Not many, but the information is very adequately recorded in a booklet that I received about 2 weeks ago entitled, "States and Sectarian Education," from the National Education Association; and in my opinion it is a very excellent research job, as usual, from the National Education Association.

Now, I have read that booklet. I cannot cite to you particular States now; but I do know that there have been numerous court decisions which permit State payments for rental of parochial schools to be used as public educational agencies and which even permit the employment of teachers who wear religious garb in public schools. Senator ELLENDER. In the capacity of a teacher?

Miss WALSH. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. What is wrong with that?

Miss WALSH. I would object to it. My position and the position of our organization is that we prefer public schools. We think the public schools should be schools of a nonsectarian character, that we approve of ethical and moral education in the public schools, but for the proper maintenance of both the separation of church and state. and to see that there is no infringement on the religious thinking of the various pupils, and we feel that that garb would be bad.

Senator ELLENDER. I am sure that all of us think that there should be no infringement of religious thinking among pupils.

Miss WALSH. You surprised me a little there because I come from Pennsylvania, Senator Ellender, where there is a stricture in the State school code against the use of the wearing of any kind of garb, religious or organizational, by a teacher, even the wearing of any religious emblem by the teacher. And as a teacher of 21 years' standing there, I am inclined to accept that very wholeheartedly.

Now, on S. 472, one other point that I would like to raise is this: It seems to me that the method of making the allocations to the nonpublic schools where permitted by the States is slightly disproportionate-not much, but slightly. And section 6 (B) is a very awkwardly worded section, I believe. Nevertheless, it says basically that the maximum amount of Federal aid money which may go to a nonpublic school institution in the State must be in ratio to the aggregate Federal-aid money to public and nonpublic schools as the total State aid is to the public schools.

Now, if I might take an example, first of all it would seem to me a logical allocation would be that the Federal aid money to the nonpublic schools should be as the total Federal aid nonpublic and public is to the total State aid nonpublic and public; but it is not that.

Senator ELLENDER. Would your opposition to 6 (B) be tempered in any way if we should simply provide that no provision of this act

shall be construed to delimit a State in its definition of its program of public education-and strike out the balance? In other words, let the funds be distributed according to the way that the public funds in that State are distributed among the schools?

Miss WALSH. I think that would be a vast improvement. I would be somewhat skeptical of it because, as I say, we are stating our position from principle and our principle is that we think it is to the best interests of this country in protecting religious freedom and in conducting educational policy and in maintaining the political freedom on which this country was based, that the public schools be the only ones which are supported by the State or the Federal Government.

Senator DONNELL. Would not the suggestion made by Senator Ellender be subject to the same objection as the section as it is, that it would permit a State, any one State, the constitution of which permitted the support by the State of nonpublic schools, to take moneys derived from the great majority of the States in the Union, passing through the conduit of the Federal Government, the great majority not permitting the use of such moneys in their States, and would allow this one State which does permit it, to take these Federal funds derived from States which did not permit it and yet allow the one State to use those funds for purposes for which the great majority would not permit it. So, is it not subject to the same objection as at present?

Senator ELLENDER. I believe that if the language were changed as I suggested the Supreme Court of the United States would deny the distribution of money to the schools in the event that a State exceeded its discretion.

Senator DoNNELL. The point, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, is that it seems to me that Senator Ellender's proposal of shortening up the sentence and simply saying that money shall be paid and shall be allowed to be paid out to nonpublic schools, allowed by a State in accordance with its own State laws, is still subject to the fundamental objection that that would permit State aid, we will say, which allows that to be done, to take moneys derived from 38 States that do not permit it-

Senator ELLENDER. Only to the extent that the Federal court would allow or permit. The Supreme Court has held, as you know, that the distribution of so-called public-school funds to all children of the State is permissible because, in effect, the Court stated that the loaning of books by a State agency to all of the schools, all of the school children, is not a direct giving of money to schools, but it is a service to the children themselves.

Now, as to States that permit that, or have laws to permit it, and if it is not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, would you have any objection to that?

Senator DONNELL. I share the view of this witness that public funds of the Federal Government should not be used for schools that are nonpublic schools.

Senator ELLENDER. I agree with that, Senator. That is our point, also. But on the other hand, we do permit in Louisiana, free transportation for the children, not for the school. There is no money appropriated to any of the schools in my State, to nonsectarian schools. Whatever appropriations are made, are made direct to the children and not to the schools.

Senator AIKEN. I do not want to prolong this controversy, but I also understood, always, tnat the Federal Government is an instrument of the 48 States and that any provisos of this law or any law before going into effect must be approved by the States of this Union through their duly elected representatives to the Congress. Therefore, we cannot distribute this money except as it is approved by the States themselves. Senator ELLENDER. That is right.

Senator AIKEN. I am afraid that some of this discussion has been developing along the lines that the Federal Government is set above the States. It has always been my understanding that it was something set up by the States.

Miss WALSH. May I refer to one other point which I think should make our position clear.

Certainly we uphold the rights of parents to send their children to denominational or private schools. That is their privilege in a democracy. But we feel that the Government should. not contribute financially to this, and to the extent that additional systems of parochial education are developed with public funds, to that extent we have the public schools retarded.

Furthermore, both parents and sponsors of parochial schools admit the main reason for sending pupils to these schools is to give training in religion. We believe the home and the church have this responsibility.

We are aware of certain court decisions upholding the child benefit theory. We believe that this theory should apply solely to problems of lunch and transportation where the payment should be made to the parent. No child should be denied these benefits. However, where the appropriation is to the nonpublic school itself, we deem that an excessive authority and in violation of our Constitution.

I would like to emphasize that in making this reservation we do feel that the money should be directed through-or rather not through the nonpublic school agency but to the parent.

Senator AIKEN. You have no objection to a school nurse, for instance, examining the children in any school, wherever they happen to be, for medical inspection?

Miss WALSH. No, I would like to have that done by taking the children to a medical center and I think it can be done just as easily and in that way avoid the possibility of having interlocking of the nonpublic schools with the public school system.

Senator AIKEN. You would not object to the children of all schools being taken to a medical center for examination even if it were under the supervision and thereby under the expense, to a certain degree, of the school board of each State? That would not violate the principle of Federal money for public education, would it?

Miss WALSH. If you had such centers established outside the school system which serves the public and the nonpublic schools, we think that would be fine. We have that kind of thing in many cities where the teachers from public schools and parochial schools take children to dental clinics and I think that is a necessary service and that can be expanded into medical service and would be highly desirable.

We do, however, object to the extension of the child benefit theory to the use of instructional material and textbooks because it is very difficult for us as teachers, how in the course of instruction in a denominational school, the denominational character of the instruction

may be separated from the purely technical character of the instruction. Senator AIKEN. You do not approve of furnishing textbook material to the child?

Miss WALSH. Not in a sectarian school from public funds.

Senator AIKEN. With respect to the many cases where children live in isolated areas and cannot possibly get to school, where they may be afflicted by illness or injuries and cannot get to public schools, you do not object to the school board furnishing those children with the material they need?

Miss WALSH. I would not, but I think that is an individual case. When you come to areas where it would apply to a non-public-school district, that is another case and I know that there are isolated areas, for instance in your own State, where you have possibly a whole school or a whole district where most of the children go to a nonpublic school and there is very little public-school education.

I think that is an evidence of the historical development of that area. It has a distinct connection to the close relationship to the FrenchCanadian border, I should think.

Senator AIKEN. I do not think we have more than 8 or 10 towns in the State that have parochial schools but we have a great many more than that that have nonprofit private schools.

Miss WALSH. That is also part of the colonial background.

Senator AIKEN. It is a fact that the people in the early days established these schools in advance of the establishment of public high schools because they wanted better education for their children and that is the very reason today that every qualified private school in the United States is having to turn away applicants. I am not speaking of parochial schools. I am speaking of the schools having to turn away applicants or applications from people who have the money to pay for better education for their children and are not satisfied with the education which they receive in public schools today.

Miss WALSH. I think the weakness of that position is

Senator AIKEN. It is anticipated that within a short time there will be 3,000,000 children attending the private schools of the United States for the simple reason that they can get a better education.

Miss WALSH. I think the weakness there, of course, is the fact that because of the development of nonpublic schools, the public schools have been retarded in their development and I believe it would be to our ultimate advantage to give the push to the development through public funds of the public schools.

I think that concludes my testimony.

I would like to cite one instance, if it would not take up too much of your time, to point up what I mean by the difficulty of separating instructional material from denominational instruction. I had some experience in this past year in organizing teachers in the Englishspeaking branch in several religious schools. It was a most peculiar situation anyhow. They called me in on a board of arbitration in regard to wages and working conditions. The point that interested me most was that when it came to discussing the tenure that the teachers would like to have, one of the demands of the board of this particular school was that even if a teacher were efficient, the board should be permitted to dismiss that teacher without cause if she introduced in her teaching things which were offensive to the particular religion. The incident that was referred to had to do with a book

which is part of everyone's American culture, at least everyone's understanding and knowledge, but it did not happen to belong in this particular religious school. We agreed to that in the contract I am referri g to because we believed that these teachers were teaching in a relivious school and should abide in the course of their conduct by the tenets of the religion.

However, it pointed up to me very sharply the very serious difficulty in trying to separate the use of instructional material purely as teachingmaterial from its use as denominational guidance and I feel that such a school should not be given either Federal funds or State funds. That is my personal opinion.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Miss Walsh.

We will now recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m., Friday, April 25, 1947.)

(Miss Walsh submitted the following brief:)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF S. 472, FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

(By the National Teachers Division, United Public Workers of America, CIO, 13 Astor Place, New York 3, N. Y., submitted by Sara T. Walsh, director)

The Eightieth Congress turns to the problem of Federal aid to education in the midst of an actual and widespread break-down of the educational system of our country. For more than 10 years Congress has been presented with an exhaustive documentation by educational experts, governmental committees, labor and community leaders, concerning the need for Federal aid. Even the most astute warnings of the past did not encompass the disaster which grips our public schools today. Basically arising from the inequalities in the abilities of the various States to finance a decent minimum educational program, it reached serious proportions during the depression when schools were further restricted financially. Wartime neglect of the schools made the break-down apparent in the migration of pupils and teachers from the schools, the abolition of thousands of classes, the accumulated need of repairs, supplies, new buildings, and adequate teacher salaries necessary for the conduct of even an acceptable minimum program for the pupils.

There was no reason to expect that the crisis in education would ease off with the cessation of war combat. On the contrary, it has, by the second peacetime year, become a disaster of such national sweep that every major newspaper, magazine, and radio network has expressed the alarm of the educators and public. The Eightieth Congress has a responsibility to lift our Nation out of this educational havoc. It is the only agency which can do so because only Congress can correct the fundamental cause. Federal aid action by this Congress is indispensable to the educational needs of millions of children and to the future productive ability of our Nation. Our public schools are one of the prime elements in building for the peace, freedom, and prosperity of our Nation. The Eightieth Congress must discharge its obligation to our people to strengthen our public schools.

The National Education Association, the American Council on Education and the CIO have presented to the Congress and to the public comprehensive data demonstrating the scope and severity of the educational crisis. They have demonstrated the wide disparity in the ability of the various States to support education as measured by State income. They have proved that the low income States are the States with the greater pupil population. They have demonstrated that because of these two factors certain States with low incomes cannot provide an acceptable minimum educational program despite the fact that their expenditures the States with the greater pupil population. They have demonstrated that for education per classroom are proportionately higher than those of the high income States. A low income State like Mississippi spends 3.4 percent of income for education. The United States average is 2.5 percent. Yet, Mississippi expends only $448 per classroom. The United States average is $1,600. Here, too, little money has to be spread among a great many children. Similarly, Alabama expends 2.7 percent of the State income on education-again, higher than the United States average. But the average Alabama classroom receives only $748. This is less than one-half of the United States average. The reverse

60144-47-pt. 1—16