I realize that the sums necessary to accomplish this will be quite large. However, when considered in relation to the enormous amount that we have just expended in the greatest war in history, all you might say, for destruction, it does seem to me that we can afford to invest at least this amount in construction.

We all recognize the ideological conflict which is at present gripping the world. If we are to be victorious in our fight to survive as a democratic country, we must see that the teachers in this country are enlightened and aware of the great benefits that our democratic system brings to the world. I am informed that communism flourishes the greatest in ignorance and poverty. We cannot afford to have in our school systems, teachers who are so low in our economic scale of living that they might become subject to the ideologies of communism. One teacher infiltrated with this doctrine will cause more damage to our system, through the influence that he or she exerts upon the growing minds of the children, than millions of dollars spent in propaganda campaigns.

I feel that the future of this country is so dependent upon the citizens of tomorrow, who we all recognize are the children of today, that we must exert every effort to see that this coming generation, as well as the generations to follow, are in the hands of capable teachers who not only teach democracy but are themselves convinced that democracy is the best form of government in the world.

It must be remembered that a school teacher is not made overnight, that even with the minimum qualifications in today's enlightened program, a teacher must spend several years of graduate study in order to be a good teacher. Yet, when we consider that the national average pay for teachers now stands at close to $2,000, it does not follow that a person will devote years of study and hundreds of dollars to secure an education, in order to receive a salary such as this. If we but look around we find in most every walk of life, that the remuneration received for honest labor far exceeds that paid to the teachers. The teaching profession cannot hope to continue to draw the best qualified, even the naturally qualified, unless it is able to offer at least a fair wage scale.

The rate at which the teachers have been vanishing from the profession in the past 5 or 6 years, is indicative of the seriousness of this problem. I am informed that approximately 110,000 persons are teaching with emergency certificates, which merely means that they are not qualified to teach. Are we satisfied to leave the development of our youth in the hands of people who, not being qualified for the job, are not in a position to recognize the many perils that are being placed in the foot-path of the youth of today?

Al

I have been much disturbed over the recent strikes by school teachers. though presumably they have this right, it does not seem to indicate a nation, or a country, of the highest degree of law and order, when the school teachers who represent a segment of our population, which, during the entire history thereof, has been considered a conservative, stable group, seem to consider this is their only resort. It is indicative of the dynamite in this problem, when teacher groups are forced to strike, for their action affects not only the Government but is reflected in the lives of the children whom they teach.

If I may return a moment to the bill S. 170, I believe that the provisions of this bill are the least controversial that may be included and still effect the end desired. The bill does provide for increasing salaries. It does it in a manner in which every school teacher can determine the exact amount he or she is entitled to, and would thereby relieve in a great measure, the administrative cost of auditing such payments. In other words, it would be practically self-policing. The funds that are authorized for appropriation by the bill are of course estimates based upon the best information I could obtain with regard to the approximate cost. The cost may be considerably less-and I feel that it will.

In conclusion, let me repeat that this bill is not offered as a perfect solution for the many problems related to educational needs. It is, I hope, a simple means whereby we may immediately inject into the teaching profession some stimulus that will help to carry this great profession over a period of dire distress.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. TAFT TO ACCOMPANY S. 472

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION

It is unnecessary to dwell on the importance of education to the United States and to the Federal Government. It lies at the very basis of all intelligent selfgovernment. This Nation was founded "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Liberty and equal justice under aw must be

continuously secured if we are to carry out the purposes of the formation of this Republic; but neither liberty nor justice can be secured without a widely diffused education. We cannot preserve the Republic at all unless the people are taught to read and to think so that they may understand its basic principles and the application of such principles to current problems. No man can be free if he does not understand the opportunities which lie before him. No man can have equality of opportunity if he has not the knowledge to understand how to use the rights which are conferred upon him.

Furthermore, education is essential to economic welfare. The principal concern of the people today is apparently to increase the standard of living and the material welfare of our citizens. I believe this goal is being pursued too much to the exclusion of other values, but certainly it dominates our national thinking. Any general economic welfare is impossible without education. Unless men understand to some extent the principles of increased productivity, prosperity can be quickly destroyed. Unless men know what other men have achieved and are educated to a desire for the same improvements, history shows that they remain in perpetual poverty. I have always felt that the misery which depresses the mass of people in India and in China, for instance, is due to the lack of education and understanding of the higher standards which are possible.

Furthermore, education is the only defense of liberty against totalitarianism. It may be that intelligent people will be occasionally misled to vest complete power in the state or in a single individual, but without education dictatorships inevitably arise. And by the same token, education may be a dangerous tool in the hands of an all-powerful state. We have seen how Hitler used educaton to change the whole philosophy of German youth until they came to believe in the doctrine of a superior race and totalitarian government. Such a government, in the end, could only have maintained itself by suppressing freedom of education.

EDUCATION PRIMARILY A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY

Broadly speaking, this country has done a good job in education. It finally became fully committed to the principle of universal free schooling for every child in the United States. Its system was built up on the basis of the development and control of education by each community, so that the parents in each city, town, and county could determine the manner in which their children should be taught. Naturally, the character of education varied throughout the country and was of many different qualities and types. Experiments in method have been freely made and have failed or succeeded after a fair trial. Men differently taught have developed novel and clashing theories which have finally met in the forum of national debate to be passed upon by the entire people. This very variety has promoted a freedom of thought, and consequently a material progress, greater than that of any other country in the world.

This same localization of education has made it in some respects less effective. Some districts have done their job poorly. That is an inevitable incident to local administration, but we may well remember that when a Federal system develops faults, and it always does, those faults extend throughout the entire country on a universal scale. The adoption of a Federal system looks perfect on paper, but in practice it soon develops the inefficiencies of every huge bureaucracy, besides subjecting 25,000,000 children to the particular ideology of a small clique in control in Washington.

The faults of local administration in some districts cannot all be cured, because they are due to the very freedom to make mistakes which is essential to any freedom at all. But in many districts, the failure in education is due to causes which can well be remedied, and in particular if it is due to the poverty of the district or of the State in which it lies. While money is not the only requirement of a good school system, as so many of our writers on public-school education seem to think, it is certainly an essential one. There is a wide variation in the wealth of different States and districts. The income per capita ranges from $484 in Mississippi to $1,452 in Connecticut for the year 1943. The differences between districts in the same State are even wider.

The result is that children in some districts receive a poor education or no education at all. This has been clearly shown up by the illiteracy found in the selective service examinations. Rejection rates for educational deficiency averaged nearly 8 percent throughout the Nation as a whole with a much heavier rate in the poorer States Even in the wealthier States there was a small percentage of rejections for this cause, possibly because of persons who had come from other States. In any event, we have failed to do a complete job of giving American children equal opportunity due, in part, to causes which I think can be corrected.

NEED FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID

We

Without question, the primary obligation to educate children under our constitutional system falls on the States and local districts. But I believe very strongly that the Federal Government has a proper function in the field. are a great and healthy Nation. I believe the people of this country feel that our productive ability is so great that we can prevent hardship and poverty and illiteracy in the United States. Perhaps no nation has ever done so, but the American people think it is possible for us to do it. The Federal Government is authorized to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and under that constitutional grant has the right to dispense money to the States and local districts for purposes not within the constitutional power of the United States to control or regulate.

Not only are some of the States poor, but States in general have a limited power of taxation. They cannot raise their taxes much above those of other States or their citizens and industries would drift into those other States. The Federal Government's powers of taxation are not unlimited, but we are raising some $35,000,000,000 today, compared to $10,000,000,000 for the States and local districts.

My own belief is that the Federal Government should assist those States desiring to put a floor under essential services in relief, in medical care, in housing, and in education. Apart from the general humanitarian interest in achieving this result, equality of opportunity lies at the basis of this Republic. No child can begin to have equality of opportunity unless he has medical care in his youth, adequate food, decent surroundings, and, above all, effective schooling. It is the concern of the entire Nation to see that the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution are translated into reality.

I believe, therefore, that the Federal Government should undertake a system of extending financial aid to the States with the objective of enabling the States to provide a basic minimum education to every child, to the end that equal opportunity shall not be interfered with by the financial condition of the State or district of the child's residence.

EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BECOME SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL

Certain principles, however, seem to me clear.

The administration of education and control of the school system must be completely in the hands of the State and local administrators. I believe that every Federal aid proposal which has been made accepts this principle in theory. It is admitted that local self-government in education is essential to the preservation of liberty in a country the size of the United States.

The matter, however, is not quite so simple as declaring a principle. Our experience has shown that Federal aid to local activities, even though disowning an intention to regulate and control, may easily bring about such a control. If Federal aid depends upon the discretion of some Federal officer who has the power to withhold funds, human nature is such that he is apparently under a constant temptation to tell the recipients of the money how they must run their affairs. The threat is there, sometimes express and sometimes implied, that if the State Bureau does not comply with Federal suggestions, the money will not be forthcoming. We have seen an example of this in the control attempted to be exercised by the Children's Bureau during the war. Therefore, I believe that the standards should be clearly established in the law, and that the Federal Government should interest itself in only one question, whether the statutory standard is complied with and the money used only for the purposes of the act. If we can reduce the Federal interference to a matter of audit, we may hope to maintain local independence. Fortunately, the tradition of the Federal Office of Education has been one of noninterference, and the office up to this time has preferred to work through the State departments of education.

I have pointed out that Federal administrative officers are inclined to extend their jurisdiction and interference, but we must also restrain the inclination of Congress to do the same. In any appropriation bill, passed long after a Federalaid system is established, it is always possible for someone to offer an amendment providing that the funds appropriated shall not be used for some purpose which happens to be unpopular in Congress. Thus an amendment may require that no money shall be used for education which teaches socialism, for instance. The purpose may be a very praiseworthy one, but the moment Congress imposes that kind of a condition, it may soon impose others and we are embarked on a course likely to lead to complete Federal control.

Also, if the Federal funds become a very considerable percentage of the total sum deing used, it is almost impossible to prevent some Federal interference, even with every safeguard provided as in the bill we have introduced. I think States which accept Federal funds and come to rely on them are in danger of losing much of their independence. A State which can get on without the Federal money had better exert every effort to do so. I do not regret, therefore, that Ohio is in a position where it can carry on without Federal assistance, and will have to do so under the formula in our bill.

The danger of Federal control of educational policy appears clearly in the controversy now going on regarding private and parochial schools. The advocates of such schools insist that the Federal money be available to such schools regardless of the policy of any State government in refusing to recognize such schools as part of the public school system. On the other hand, the opponents of such schools wish us to declare that no Federal money shall be expended for private or parochial schools, regardless of what the policy of the State may be in dispensing its own funds. If we yielded to either of these arguments, we would clearly be changing the educational policy of the State. This bill is a State-aid bill, and the State should be authorized to use the Federal funds for the same educational purposes for which it uses its own State funds. If the State recognizes private and parochial schools as part of its State educational system, then the bill provides that it may use Federal funds in the same proportion in which its State funds are used for such schools. On the other hand, if the State educational policy is to operate only through public schools, Federal money can only be used for that purpose.

If we cannot maintain the principle of noninterference in State educational systems, I would be opposed to the whole bill. The question has nothing to do with the highly controversial problem whether States should appropriate public funds for parochial schools. One may feel strongly either way on that subject, but it is a matter for each State and the people of each State to determine.

EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BECOME DEPENDENT UPON FEDERAL AID

The second principle which I believe must underlie any bill for Federal aid is that the Federal contribution shall be auxiliary and shall not become the principal support of education. I have already pointed out that regardless of safeguards, too much reliance on Federal money would inevitably come to mean Federal control. But even more than that, the Federal Government's primary obligations must take the greater part of the money which can be raised even by Federal taxation. Three national responsibilities, interest on the public debt, support of the armed forces, and payment of veterans' allowances, amount in the present budget to $23,500,000,000, three times the entire prewar budget of the Federal Government. It is not true that the Federal Government can levy all the taxes it may like to levy. The present tax burden seems to me a complete discouragement of the very economic activity from which taxes come. The people today on the average are paying nearly one-third of their income in taxation, working 1 day in 3 for the Government. I believe such a tax system will soon discourage both individual initiative and corporate expansion. The Federal contributions, therefore, to States for matters where States have the primary obligation, like welfare, health, housing, and education, must be in a limited amount.

On the other hand, the State tax systems have been set up in most cases very largely with a view to raising money for education. They should be even more adapted to that purpose, and they should be looked to primarily for the necessary increase in teachers salaries. I realize the difficulty which even the wealthier States have today to raise the necessary money, but such States can do so, and should.

My own theory is that wage rates per hour have undergone a permanent increase which means a permanent increase in costs. I doubt if the cost of living can at any time be reduced to much less than 150 percent of prewar. I believe we should

try to adjust our whole economy to a 50-percent increase in the wage and price level. Since teachers were in most cases underpaid, even before the war, the increase in teachers' salaries over prewar should probably be greater than 50 percent.

I believe the States can and should give such an increase. It is true that it takes some time to adjust a State tax system to the higher level of values, to increase real-estate appraisals and the like, but certainly increased price and wage levels should be reflected in time in a permanent corresponding increase in the State tax receipts. For the present many States have a surplus. Those which

60144-47- —4

have no surplus might provide for a gradual increase over several years. But I feel strongly that the Federal Government with its tremendous burden should not be called upon to solve the financial problems of States having more than the average per capita income, fully able to give an adequate education to their children.

S. 472-FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION BILL

S. 472 provides that, as a necessary condition of Federal aid, any State must provide for its primary and secondary educational system at least 2.2 percent of the income of its citizens. This is slightly higher than the national average, Furthermore, the allotment to any State is proportionately reduced if it does not levy at least 21⁄2 percent of the income of its citizens.

When I speak of the income of its citizens, the concept is one of a State income similar to what we have come to speak of as "national income," namely, the gross income of all the individuals in the State as determined by the Department of Commerce. I do not suppose this statistical measure is completely accurate, but it is now regarded as substantially so.

The bill then provides that if 1.1 percent of the State income, which would be one-half the total State and local revenue set aside for primary and secondary education, is insufficient to provide $40 for each child from 5 to 17 years of age in the State, then the Federal Government will make up the difference so that onehalf of the State revenue plus the Federal contribution will equal $40 for each such child.

It is then required that the State see that every school district in the State receive from Federal, State, and local revenues at least $40 per annum for each pupil in average daily attendance-excluding interest, debt service, and capital outlay. If there are separate colored schools, each colored school must receive such amount. You will note that there will remain to the State to be used in its discretion, one-half of its total school revenues, equal at least to 1.1 percent of the income of its people. Undoubtedly, some districts will get a larger proportion of this surplus fund than others, but it should be entirely possible for a State to provide from such funds a higher minimum base than $40 if it chooses to do so. We considered making a requirement of perhaps $60 per child, but we found that while there would be enough money in each State from State, local, and Federal funds to provide such a uniform standard, it would take money now being spent for schools in the wealthier districts in the State to be distributed to the others. Perhaps a State equalization system should do that, but we did not like to compel the reduction of the funds now being spent in any of the wealthier urban districts.

In summary, therefore, the basis of S. 472 is that if a State after making more than the average effort cannot provide $40 per child from half its revenues, the Federal Government will assist the State to see that every child receives at least a $40 education. I realize that this is too low a permanent standard, but it is very much higher than is now being spent for many children in the poorer districts of the United States. It will take some years even to reach the $40 minimum standard, and then we can consider whether to shoot at a higher goal.

There is reason to hope that the disparity in income between the different States may gradually decrease. The very education in the poorer States which we are now promoting ought to increase the progress, prosperity, and income of those States. As they approach the national average, the necessity for aid from the Federal Government will become less. This might well enable us, without increasing the appropriation, to raise the standard.

I quite realize that this bill does not hold out any immediate promise of relief to the teachers in many States. Where the aid does go, probably 80 percent of it will go for increases in teachers' salaries where those salaries are now the lowest. There are some bills providing a general contribution by the Federal Government to all teachers' salaries and proposing very large appropriations for Federal assistance to education. I do not believe that Congress under the present budget condition could possibly adopt any such bills. In fact, even with S. 472 we may have to postpone its first effective year until the Appropriations Committee certifies that the program can be begun within the over-all limitation set by the provisions of the La Follette-Monroney bill. The concern of all should be first to see that all American children have opportunity. That is the proper concern also of the Federal Government.

The principal danger to the present bill rests in the differences between the advocates of Federal education. I feel very strongly that if all of the advocates would unite behind S. 472 it could be passed at this session of Congress. It is