And by

mental official has control over the education of our children. "control" I mean that grasp of the child's mind and will which is the very essence of educational control. In a democracy parents have the first and principal right over the education of children. They, and they alone, have the right to determine whether their child's formal education in school shall include or exclude religious instruction.

I think that one of the most appalling situations in our democratic way of life is the dangerous assumption on the part of so many people that education is a governmental service. One of the major factors today explaining the apathetic attitude of American citizens during the present crisis in public education is the general feeling that the responsibility for schools rests with that impersonal thing known as the State or government. This assumption on the part of so many people is insidious because it is conditioning the public mind for the acceptance of governmental control of education, a control which would bring to an end one of our most cherished freedoms, freedom of education.

Therefore, government cannot be expected to support both public and private police departments and fire departments, that I can see. After all, the Government has the main interest in public order protected by adequate police and fire departments. But government can be expected to support both public and nonpublic schools because it is not the Government but the parents of children who have the principal interest in the formal education of their children in school.

I recall the precious words of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding an Oregon State case at a time when many religious groups were gathered together to defend this education, and those words of the Supreme Court are:

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instructions from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligation.

These words constitute the charter of educational liberty in the United States and I am disturbed when I hear witnesses before this committee say that the parents who exercise this freedom by sending their children to qualified parochial schools must pay for this privilege. The first attack upon any fundamental right is always a strangulation of that right by imposing economic handicaps upon its free exercise.

May I make it clear that my position on Federal aid to education is not motivated by any vain illusion that a grant of Federal aid for nonpublic schools would solve their financial problems. The issue of Federal aid for nonpublic schools merely dramatizes the real issue at stake, namely, whether it is possible in a democracy for parents to make a free choice between public and private schools without fear that their children in the private schools will be denied any of the benefits which the Government makes available in terms of the general welfare.

I think that the brief which I have submitted to the committee indicates how vitally interested my organization is in solving the crisis in public education resulting from the low salaries paid thousands of faithful and devoted public school teachers. I add my voice to the chorus which has expressed its endorsement of Federal aid to

education as a means for more nearly equalizing educational opportunities among the States.

Without delaying any longer on generalities—they are the most important thing, however, of what I want to say-I want to present to the committee some specific recommendations.

It appears to me that the amendment to S. 181 of the Seventyninth Congress proposed in the separate statement of views accompanying the report on this bill is a simple, direct, and reasonable method for making S. 472 acceptable to both public and nonpublic school groups. It is estimated that of the $250,000,000 authorized by this bill, $242,500,000 would go to public schools and $7,500,000 would be used for paying the salaries of teachers in nonpublic schools. This amendment is simply an adaptation of the school-lunch-program procedure which is working out smoothly in all of the States of the Union. At the present time some 20 States are disbursing Federal funds to both public and nonpublic schools for school-lunch purposes and in the other 28 States the Federal Government is dealing directly with the nonpublic schools.

I would gather, however, from what I have heard during these past 4 days that this amendment, reasonable as it is and with bi-partisan support, would not be too well received at the present time. May I say sincerely in the name of my organization that I want to go the limit in proposing a compromise which would give practically all the money to the public schools and would give a few dollars to nonpublic schools as a token recognition of what they are doing for the Nation, and, even more important, as a safeguard for freedom of education in our democracy. Senator, I propose that a bill be drafted which would do two things:

First, provide funds specifically allocated for raising the salaries of public-school classroom teachers in the poorer States of the Nation.

Second, to provide funds so that the children attending all schools, public and nonpublic, would receive certain essential school services, such as transportation, nonreligious textbooks and supplies, and health and welfare services. These funds would be distributed according to the pattern of the School Lunch Act.

I think that is a fair compromise. I do not know whether it will be acceptable to the large and articulate public school professional organizations. But I dare say that it will be acceptable to labor and to the American people as a whole.

Finally, may I say that a bill of the type which I have just suggested will be wholly consistent with the Federal Government's traditional policy of equity in its educational legislation. It will also reflect a keen political sagacity because it is a fact for the record that the educational bills which have passed Congress are those which provided for funds for the direct or indirect aid of both public and private educational institutions, and the bills which died, Congress after Congress, are those which were discriminatory and unjust in their failure to count the children in nonpublic schools among the beneficiaries of the Federal Government's assistance.

Now, I would like to say just one word about some of the discussion concerning section 6B in S. 472. It has been said many times here that that provision leaves the matter of aid to public or nonpublic schools to the States. I am afraid that is slightly inaccurate. What section 6B requires is this: A State must match with local and State funds any part of its Federal allotment which it gives to those non

public schools. That certainly, in effect, is imposing a control upon the States because it would be only in the case of a nonpublic school that there would be a necessity of matching the Federal funds for such schools.

Senator, I think I have taken enough time of the committee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator DONNELL. Just a few questions, Reverend McManus. You are from Illinois?

Reverend MCMANUS. That is right, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Do I understand, or am I to understand, that you think that it would be proper and legal, I should say, for the Federal Government to use funds of the Federal Government toward the provision of lunches and bus service and service of that type, throughout the country?

Reverend MCMANUS. I do, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. And do you think that in any sense would be hostile to the generally prevailing constitutional provisions opposed to the participation by the state in education conducted by churches? Reverend MCMANUS. I am not aware, Senator, of just how general that constitutional inhibition is. I do know this: Twenty attempts. were made to amend the Federal Constitution along the lines of the antisectarian, if you will, provision in the Illinois constitution. Twenty times it failed. So I am not aware, therefore, of any prohibitions in the Federal Constitution similar to the prohibition in the Illinois constitution. Furthermore, may I add, in Illinois the school busses, I am proud to say, pick up the children going both to the public and nonpublic schools, so I do not think there would be any inconsistency, therefore, between a Federal bill providing for that service and the constitution of Illinois.

Senator DONNELL. Do you mind if I read into the record at this time that provision of the constitution of Illinois?

Reverend MCMANUS. I would be glad to have you do it.

Senator DONNELL. The Constitution of Illinois contains a provision reading substantially as follows:

Neither the legislature nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of church or sectarian or religious society, or for any sectarian or religious purpose, or to help support or assist any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution controlled by any church, sectarian, or religious denomination; nor shall grant nor donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the State or any such public corporation to any church or for any sectarian or religious purpose.

Reverend McManus, you are informed, are you not, that in general substance that provision exists in a great many of the States of the Union?

Reverend MCMANUS. I think that is true; yes, it does.

Senator DONNELL. If I may state, from my own State of Missouri, this was the language in 1857, and I think the new constitution is identically the same in the one that was adopted February 27, 1945. It reads:

Neither the general assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other municipal corporation shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund, whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning, controlled

by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the State or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

Reverend McManus, have you had occasion to study the work by Professor Cubberley on education in the United States?

Reverend MCMANUS. Yes; I have.

Senator DONNELL. Is that generally considered as quite authoritative at least in the matter of recital of facts, leaving out the question of his views; is it generally considered as reliable in its setting forth the facts?

Reverend MCMANUS. I do not think so.

Senator DONNELL. You do not think it is?

Reverend MCMANUS. It is very commonly used. But there are many other textbooks on educational administration, on the history of American education, that are perhpas even more authoritative than Professor Cubberly's celebrated book.

Senator DONNELL. In what respect would you say his work is either inexact or not of great authoritative value?

Reverend MCMANUS. It has been a long time since I read Professor Cubberly's book; but if my impression is correct, I think that he is inclined to make a thesis for the fact that education in the United States really prospered once it was freed from the shackles of control by the churches and other sectarian groups. There is a bit of editorializing, I am afraid, throughout Professor Cubberly's book.

Now, I am aware that it is very, very difficult for a man to write a textbook that is perfectly objective. That is one of the limitations, I think, in Professor Cubberly's book.

Senator DONNELL. Yes, I was endeavoring, Reverend McManus, in my question to you to differentiate between the statements of fact in his book and the editorializing and I was not asking you as to your views as to Professor Cubberly's opinion. In other words, I was not asking you about his editorializing. What I was trying to get at is this: Would you generally consider that the recitals of fact as distinguished from the expressions of opinion may be taken as reasonably accurate in Professor Cubberly's book?

The Reverend MCMANUS. I would say that I would assume that because certainly the man would otherwise be dishonest if he did not put the facts in his book and I would not attribute that to Professor Cubberly for a moment.

Senator DONNELL. I believe you said the book is celebrated and widely read?

The Reverend MCMANUS. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. And in schools and universities and colleges throughout the country?

Reverend MCMANUS. That is right.

Thank you very much, Reverend McManus.

(The Reverend McManus submitted the following brief:)

STATEMENT BY REV. WILLIAM E. MCMANUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE

INTRODUCTION

The department of education, National Catholic Welfare Conference, is grateful for the opportunity to express its views on the topic, Federal Aid to Education, as proposed in several bills now pending before the committee.

The department of education, National Catholic Welfare Conference, is an agency established by the Catholic bishops of the United States to coordinate the activities of Catholic schools. There are in the United States 10,225 Catholic elementary and secondary schools staffed by 100,758 teachers and enrolling 2,507,501 pupils.

NEED FOR FEDERAL AID

Every American child, no matter where he happens to reside, is entitled to the advantages of an adequate education. This education should include the following essential services:

"1. A well-planned program of general education for all children and youth and also suitable preparation for particular vocations in accordance with the needs of the children and youth.

"2. Instruction by carefully selected teachers who are competent and well prepared, and who are interested in the development of community life.

3. Safe and sanitary school buildings adapted to a modern program of instruction and related services.

"4. Suitable school equipment and instructional materials, including books and other reading materials adequate for the needs of the children.

"5. Student aid when necessary to permit able young people to remain in school at least up to age 18.

"6. Suitable opportunities for part-time and adult education." 1

Abundant statistical evidence submitted to the committee by experts proves beyond any doubt that thousands of American children are not receiving an education which meets even minimum standards. These children are no less worthy of the benefits of a good education than are their more fortunate fellow citizens. They are simply the innocent victims of a mere circumstance; they happen to live in areas of the Nation where there are many children and few taxable resources with which to finance schools. Even the extraordinary effort of their parents and neighbors to raise sufficient funds for educational purposes does not produce enough revenue to give all the children the benefits of an adequate education.

The condition of many schools in the South, particularly of the separate schools for Negroes, is a national problem. It is a problem which not only the South but the Nation as a whole must face courageously and resolutely. When our Government finds that thousands of American children, tomorrow's citizens, are housed in dilapidated and hazardous school buildings, staffed by incompetent and woefully underpaid teachers who lack even the most essential instructional equipment, manifestly our Government has the duty to correct this situation as quickly as possible.

Our young Nation is now approaching the full stature of adulthood. In this atomic age of one world our national character must be developed by a Federal Government which in the interest of the general welfare aims to bring to all citizens the essential advantages of democratic society, economic security, political freedom, health services, and adequate educational opportunity. If we are to educate for one world, we first must endeavor to educate for one nation in which all citizens, no matter in what State they live, have access to suitable schools.

Reliable statistics presented to the committee by other witnesses indicate that some States lack sufficient taxable resources for financing a defensible system of schools. Even though these States were to increase substantially their appropriations of tax funds for educational purposes, the gross amount would still be inadequate for their educational needs. Federal aid allocated to the States on an equalization basis appears to be the only practical remedy for the widespread inequality of educational opportunity among the States.

In short, the comparatively well-to-do taxpayers of Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and other States have the duty in social justice to provide tax funds through the Federal Government for the aid of their less-fortunate fellow citizens in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and other States. It whould be noted that this duty is incumbent upon all the taxpayers in the wealthier States including the large number of Catholic taxpayers who send their children to parochial schools. (See appendix, table IV)

FEDERAL CONTROL

For a period of over 20 years the Department of Education opposed Federal aid to education because it feared that grants of Federal funds to schools would lead to Federal control of education. This fear was based on a knowledge of the con1 Report of the committee, the Advisory Committee on Education, 1938, p. 17.