daily attendance not less than the specified minima until the national minimum or level floor of $100 per pupil is reached in the fiscal year 1953 and thereafter. Table II indicates how the standards respecting the availability of Federal funds would operate to establish a national floor under educational expenditures for current operating expenses in each local school administrative unit by 1953 of not less than $100 per pupil in average daily attendance. Column 2 of table II shows by States the expenditures for current expenses per -pupil in average daily attendance for the fiscal year 1944.2 These expenditures range from an average of $42.25 per pupil in Mississippi to $185.12 per pupil in New York. It may be fairly assumed that the expenditures of these various States as shown in column 2 represent about what the citizens through the years have found it practicable to do in support of education in their respective States by employing State and local revenue sources. Column 3 of table II shows how in the fiscal year 1953 and thereafter a national uniform floor under educational expenditures of $100 per pupil in average daily attendance would be achieved. Beginning with the fiscal year 1952, Federal grants-in-aid (column 4) would total $60 per pupil in average daily attendance. Each State would be required as a condition for the receipt of the Federal grants to expend from State and local revenue sources at least $40 per pupil (column 5) thus assuring the national floor of $100 per pupil. Column 6 shows the additional amounts, i. e., in addition to the required minimum of $100 per pupil in average daily attendance from all sources, which States would at their own option need to provide from State and local revenue sources if they should desire to equal their expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance for the fiscal year 1944.2 Undoubtedly most of the States will wish to provide a richer educational program than that represented by an expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance of $100. The States which were expending more than $100 per pupil in 1946, such as New York, New Jersey, California, and others, would have the choice from the beginning of the operation of the act in 1948 of using all or part of their share of the Federal grants either (1) as an offset for State and local taxes for the support of elementary and secondary schools or (2) to improve still further their systems of education. Other States, such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and others (see table II), which were expending less than $100 per pupil in 1946 would each year have to continue to spend from State and local revenue sources at least as much as they had been spending in 1946 until such time as the combined expenditure from Federal, State, and local sources reached or exceeded $100 per pupil. TABLE III Conditions States must meet to qualify to receive Federal allotments 1949 1950.. 1951. 1952. 1953. 1954. 1955. $20 per pupil in average $30 per pupil in average $40 per pupil in average $50 per pupil in average $60 per pupil in average $60 per pupil in average $60 per pupil in average $60 per pupil in average (a) Must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1948 not less than amount per pupil in average daily attendance spent during fiscal 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount. (b) Must have spent from all revenue sources in 1948 not less than $50 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. (a) Must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1949 not less than amount per pupil in average daily attendance spent during fiscal 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount. (b) Must have spent from all revenue sources in 1949 not less than $60 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. (a) Must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1950 not less than amount per pupil in average daily attendance spent during fiscal 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount. (b) Must have spent from all revenue sources in 1950 not less than $70 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. (a) Must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1951 not less than amount per pupil in average daily attendance spent during fiscal 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount. (b) Must have spent from all revenue sources in 1951 not less than $80 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. (a) Must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1952 not less than amount per pupil in average daily attendance spent during fiscal 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount. (b) Must have spent from all revenue sources in 1952 not less than $90 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. (a) Must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1953 not less than amount per pupil in average daily attendance spent during fiscal 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount. (b) Must have spent from all revenue sources in 1953 not less than $100 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. * Data for 1944 are useful in table II for illustrative purposes only since that is the latest year for which data were available. The bill itself requires that figures for 1946 be used. Table III shows in tabular form for succeeding allotments years beginning with 1948 the amount of the Federal allotments and the conditions States must meet to qualify for the receipt of the allotments. Thus, in 1948 all States would receive $20 for each pupil they reported as having been in average daily attendance during the second fiscal year preceding 1948, i. e., 1946. For the allotment year 1949 all States would receive $30 for each pupil they reported as having been in average daily attendance during 1947. In order to be eligible to receive the 1950 allotment, States must meet two conditions: (a) they must have spent from State and local revenue sources in 1948 an amount per pupil in average daily attendance not less than that spent during 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount; and (b) they must have spent from all revenue sources in 1948 an amount not less than $50 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local administrative unit. To illustrate, let us take the State of Mississippi. In 1948, in order to receive its Federal allotment of $20 per pupil in average daily attendance Mississippi, having accepted the provisions of the act, would merely report to the United States Office of Education the number of pupils that had been in average daily attendance during 1946 and the amount of the State's expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance during that year for current operating expenses. Assuming, for purposes of illustration, that the number of pupils in average daily attendance and the amount of Mississippi's expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance were the same as those reported for 1944, i. e., 444,898 pupils and $42.25 per pupil in average daily attendance, respectively, then Mississippi would receive in 1948 an allotment in the amount of $20 per pupil in average daily attendance, or $8,897,960. In 1949 Mississippi, in order to receive its allotment of $30 per pupil reported as having been in average daily attendance during 1947, again would merely report to the United States Office of Education the number of pupils in average daily attendance and the amount spent per pupil in average daily attendance during 1947 from State and local revenue sources. Beginning in 1950, in order to qualify to receive its Federal allotment of $40 per pupil reported as having been in average daily attendance during 1948, Mississippi's report to the United States Commissioner of Education would have to indicate (a) that it had spent from State and local revenue sources in 1948 an amount per pupil in average daily attendance not less than that spent during 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount; and (b) that it had spent from all revenue sources, i. e. Federal, State, and local, in 1948 not less than $50 per pupil in average daily attendance in each local school administrative unit. Since Mississippi would know, when it received its first allotment of $20 per pupil in 1948, that this standard would have to be met as a condition precedent to the receipt of its 1950 allotment, it would govern itself accordingly in the distribution of the Federal allotment to local school administrative units within the State and would thus not only raise the general level of education throughout the State but would secure a marked increase in equalization of educational opportunities within and among all local school districts. Missouri, on the other hand, since it was already spending in 1944 (and presumably in 1946 and thereafter) at least $100 per pupil in average daily attendance (see table II), would have the option from the beginning of the operation of the act of using all or part of its Federal allotment either to improve its educational program or to reduce the burden of school taxation resting upon State and local revenue sources by substituting Federal dollars for State or local dollars above the stipulated national minima, provided only that it met the stipulated national minimum expenditures in each local administrative unit. ADMINISTRATION (TITLE II) Administration is by the United States Commissioner of Education. Section 105 expressly prohibits any Federal control over personnel, curriculum, or program of instruction of any school or school system in any State receiving or expending Federal funds. The Commissioner has no authority under the act except to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the amounts to be allotted to each State which has accepted provisions of the act and otherwise qualified under section 103 to receive an allotment. The Commissioner is required to make a Federal audit of State expenditures under the act but this audit extends merely to the determination of whether or not the funds have been used to equalize educational expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance at public elementary and secondary schools in each local school administrative unit up to the amounts stipulated in section 102 of the act. It is the intention of the act to require States to continue to expend from State and local tax sources only so much as is necessary when added to the Federal allotments to attain the specified minimum or national floors. Any States which have been spending from State and local revenue sources an amount or amounts per pupil in average daily attendance in every local school administrative unit greater than those specified in section 103 may, if they choose, use part or all of the Federal grant either to relieve State and local educational tax burdens or to improve still further their educational programs. PURPOSE OF TITLE II Title II has for its purpose assistance to nonpublic tax-exempt schools of secondary grade or less by reimbursing them for not to exceed 60 percent of their actual annual expenses incurred in providing (a) necessary transportation of pupils, (b) school health examinations and related school health services, and (c) purchase of nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books. The case for some financial aid from the National Treasury to nonpublic taxexempt schools has been ably stated in the separate statement of views by myself, Senators Murray, Walsh, and Morse accompanying Senate Report 1497 on S. 181, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, from which I quote: "In spite of evidence to the contrary, some people sincerely fear that Federal aid to church-controlled schools would bring about the union of church and state. We have considered this problem very carefully and we have concluded that such a fear is groundless. If it were not, we would be the first to oppose such aid. Another tenet of our democratic belief which we hold to be just as sacred and important as the separation of church and state is that of freedom of religion. Such freedom should not be limited by imposing, in effect, certain penalties on those who faithfully carry out the practice and teachings of their religion. In this connection, also, we must recognize that the Government does not wish to supplant the duty of parents in the instruction and training of their children, but merely wishes to supplement and facilitate it.” The bill proposes frankly to face the public-private-church-school issue through a plan which would authorize the use of tax moneys collected by the Federal Government from all the Nation's citizens to reimburse non-public, tax-exempt schools of noncollegiate grade for an important part of their expense of operation, namely the provision of necessarily pupil transportation services, school-health examinations and related school-health services, the purchase of nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books, to be provided to pupils attending such schools. Such aid from tax sources would encourage the establishment of privately controlled schools of secondary grade or less. Some encouragement to such schools has long been given by existing legal provisions for tax exemption. The provisions of title II carry encouragement one step further by relieving somewhat the competitive disadvantage under which the nonpublic tax-exempt schools at present operate AMOUNT AUTHORIZED AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE (TITLE II) On the basis of an estimated 1944 average daily attendance of 2,203,121 pupils in nonpublic tax-exempt elementary and secondary schools the amount annually authorized for appropriation by section 201, i. e., $60,000,000, amounts to approximately $20,000,000 more than the 60 percent of an estimated $30 per pupil in average daily attendance, i. e., $10 for pupil transportation; $5 for health examinations and related school health services; $15 for nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books. The amount of the appropriation authorized should be sufficient, therefore, to provide for reimbursement of expenditures for increased enrollments up to a total of approximately 3,333,333 pupils in nonpublic tax-exempt elementary and secondary schools. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS (TITLE II) To qualify to receive Federal-aid funds nonpublic tax-exempt schools or school systems must submit either to the State educational authority or to the United States Commissioner of Education an application for reimbursement together with a report of their average daily attendance and of their expenditures for the aided purposes for which reimbursement is claimed. They must also agree to permit a State or Federal inspection or audit of their accounts of such expenditures. The purpose of these conditions is simply to safeguard the expenditure of the Federal funds for the purposes specified. No direct or indirect controls of the operations of the schools receiving reimbursement is made possible. STATEMENT OF HON. PAT MCCARRAN TO ACCOMPANY S. 170 Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize that my thought in the matter in increasing teachers' salaries has been to provide a bill as simple as possible so as to negative many controversial points. My bill, S. 170, contains really seven sections. Section 1 authorizes the appropriation. Section 2 sets forth a simple formula for the computation of the amounts to be paid to teachers. Section 3 provides for the administration of the fund. Section 4 provides an elasticity for meeting various State systems, and section 5 limits the Federal control of this money so as to guarantee the greatest State freedom in its educational policies. Section 6 provides the method of qualifying by which a State may receive the funds. Section 7 contains definitions, and there is a section 8 which provides for the citation of the act. I am of the opinion that under this method the greatest good can be achieved with the least expense, administratively, and also that such a method will provide an expeditious vehicle for meeting the present problem. Returning a moment to section 2, let us analyze this section and see exactly what the provisions are. The bill provides for payment to a State, who in turn will pay to its teachers a sum equal to $25 for each $100 or fraction thereof paid by the State on the first $1,000 of salary, and $15 for each $100 or fraction thereof, for the next $1,000 of salary, and $10 for each $100 or fraction on the next $1,000, and finally, $5 for each $100 or fraction thereof, on the next $1,000. It will be seen that this increase provision applies only to the first $4,000 of salary received by a teacher. The application of this section, generally, will provide an increase of 25 percent to teachers whose salary is approximately $1,000 per year. It will provide 20-percent average increase to teachers receiving approximately $2,000, or if a teacher receives $3,000, his or her increase will be approximately 16% percent, and finally, the teacher paid $4,000 will receive an increase amounting to approximately 12 percent, making this an average of approximately 18 percent increase to all teachers. Although quite possibly they are entitled to even more attractive salaries, with such increases as the States may grant, I believe that the percentage increase, authorized by S. 170, will provide the necessary stimulus to the salary of this profession, and thereby it will again begin to attract qualified personnel. You will note the complete simplicity of this solution to the tremendous problem which faces anyone who would solve the dilemma of bringing our educational system up to where it must be. I believe S. 170 accomplishes this in a manner which is direct and simple, and which will avoid the many controversial features now embodied in most of the pending legislation. Eventually a more complex piece of legislation undoubtedly will be passed in order to meet all of the problems and provide a completely adequate system of Federal assistance to education. In the meantime, however, it is my firm belief that S. 170 can give immediate relief and immediate encouragement to the school teachers of this country. Much has been said and more could be said. A brief resumé of the history of this country indicates the important part that this profession has played in the development of this great Nation. It is true that never has the teaching profession been looked upon as one wherein a person could amass a fortune. In return for the speculative gains of this profession there has been, however, a certain amount of security afforded to the school teachers which was lacking in many other trades and professions. It seems to me that our economic system has reached a point wherein this security that used to balance, If I may say so, the scales in favor of a teaching profession, has passed, and no longer can the security of a teacher's job out-weight the economic necessities of life. In an effort to meet the problem of this profession, I have introduced this bill which provides, I think, a simple method of increasing the salaries. It is recognized that this will not achieve uniformity and that the salaries in some States will still carry considerable differentials from those in other States. However, it must not be forgotten that cost-of-living indexes vary somewhat in the same manner as the salaries of the teachers in the various States. I am informed that a study on the cost of living has been made recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and when this report is released, it will establish definitely that there is a great difference in the cost of living in the various sections of our great country. I do not undertake to know the reason why. I merely recognize this as a fact, and I drafted my bill S. 170 to provide what I feel is a sensible method of increasing salaries. |