Federal Aid to Education, Hearings on S. 81, S. 170, S. 199, S. 472, S. 1131, and S. 1157, April 9, 21-25, 38-30, May 1-2, 1947

that is to be known or ought to be known about the world and about our country and about our form of government, and about the techniques of living and working and contributing-it is a tragedy, is it not, that some millions of children sit upon one level of intellectual achievement as a plateau for some millions of hours every day, every week, and every year, progressing during those hours not at all in their understanding of the world?

Now, that is due only to one thing, and that is the relative lack of competency in the management of education and of teaching.

Somebody said yesterday that this is a long-term program to which you are giving consideration, and that is true. We must not delude ourselves into believing, as with the production of airplanes, that in a crisis we can speed up processes and quickly produce qualified teachers. To some extent, and we have seen it within the last decade, in the time of great crisis into which we are catapulted we can speed up the processes of production, but even there we noticed we were lacking in certain abilities to do that most quickly; but we could do that. But let us not overlook the fact that we cannot do that with this broad problem of educating the rank and file of people with respect to an understanding of the problems which they may face in another crisis, maybe a crisis of war, maybe a crisis of economic depression; and Í think we ought to be somewhat fearful of the prospect that some day in the not distant future we may be catapulted into some other kind of crisis, and that we shall then wake up and see that the millions of our citizens do not have the capacity to solve the problems and to follow wise leadership; and then we will say, "What are we going to do about it?" and we cannot pump the energy into the system, the only system that would repair the damage quickly enough to make up the difference.

I hope and I think the American people are coming to hold all across the country that we will strengthen education before it is too late.

It has to be done with foresight for it cannot be done wisely in a hurry.

To put it another way, you just cannot prepare a good teacher over night and there are, as you have heard the testimony, no doubt, many many thousands of them dealing with our most precious assets without skill and without understanding.

I appreciate the courtesy of the committee in extending to me the invitation to testify on the general problem of Federal aid to education and to comment on the legislative proposals now under consideration by the subcommittee, namely, S. 81, S. 170, S. 199, and S. 472.

Let me begin by saying unequivocally that I am in favor of increased Federal aid to education and that it is my earnest hope that well considered and sound legislation to this end will be enacted during the present session of the Eightieth Congress.

The evidence of need for increased Federal aid to education is, it seems to me, abundant and convincing. The present crisis in education, to which so much public attention has recently been directed by the press, is the culmination of a long period of accumulating deficiencies, accentuated by the strains of wartime. Yet the census data for 1940 had indicated that for the whole Nation 10 percent of the adults, aged 24 or more, had never finished the third grade; almost 3,000,000 adults had never attended any school, 2,000,000 children between the

ages of 6 and 15 were not then enrolled in school. Selective Service findings in World War II directed public attention again to the great number of educationally disabled young men, victims of educational neglect.

We have long known that gross inequalities in educational opportunity existed, especially in the rural regions of the Nation; that our farm population, which produces 27 percent of the Nation's children, has only about 10 percent of the national income; that approximately 4 of every 10 rural youth must seek employment in cities as adults; that educational slums must be paid for in the cost of delinquency, ill health, and other social maladies; that the causes of educational underprivilege are largely economic in character; that inequality of financial ability among the several States and regions of the United States makes it inevitable that, even granted equal effort to support education, many States and local communities will lack the means to provide a good education; that the vicious circle of economic handicap and educational underprivilege can be broken only by drawing upon the wealth of the whole Nation in support of a decent educational program for the children and youth of the whole Nation; that education is truly an investment in people; and that the development of the potentialities of people should be a major concern of democratic statesmanship.

For democracy, unlike totalitarianism, affirms the dignity and worth of the individual human person, and the correlative belief that government should exist to serve the people, not people to serve the government. The security and progress of the United States rest back upon the sound character, individual initiative, and growing sense of personal responsibility of our citizens. Democracy is strong only as its citizens are strong; wise only as its citizens are enlightened; virtuous only as its citizens are rightly motivated. It is my belief, and I am sure it is yours, that the welfare of this Nation, if not of the world, depends upon the provision of much improved educational opportunities throughout America. That is why it is of such paramount importance that the action of this Congress should be such as to strengthen education-yet to leave education free, with its administration and control in the hands of the people in the States and their local communities.

The disadvantages and dangers of centralized control of education have long been recognized by students of our form of government. They have warned against inflexibility of educational systems controlled by a central ministry of education; pointed out the tendency of such central controls to inhibit educational progress born of experimentation, to lead to a dead uniformity of educational program and practice, and to remove education from the immediate concerns of the citizens. In addition, they have pointed out the possibility that a system of education centrally controlled might be prostituted to propagandistic purposes of a political party in control of the Government. Because it was nowhere specifically mentioned in the Constitution, education generally by implication of the tenth amendment has been regarded as a power of government reserved to the States. Legal theory and practice, in general, have both followed this interpretation. Yet the Federal Government has enacted many pieces of legislation designed to aid the States in establishing and maintaining educational systems and programs.

Senator Aiken. The Chair at this point would like to clear up one misapprehension which has been current in some of the newspapers throughout the country and in the minds of many people, namely, that the provisions for aid to private schools in S. 199 are approximately the same as the provisions for aid to pupils in public schools.

I would like to say here that S. 199 would eventually, within a few years, provide approximately $20 per pupil for the children in private schools and $60 per pupil in public schools, making it perfectly obvious that money would not be available for payment of teachers' salaries even if permitted by the bill, which it is not.

But S. 199 does provide for about two times the assistance per pupil to the children in the public schools than it does for the children in private schools.

Senator DONNELL. S. 199, Mr. Chairman, differs very decidedly from S. 472, does it not, in that S. 199 does not contemplate or provide for the expenditure of Federal funds for teachers' salaries, whereas S. 472 provides for any purposes of school expenditures exclusive only of interest, debt service, and capital outlay.

Senator AIKEN. That is correct.

S. 199 specifies what public funds may be spent for and S. 472 specifies what they may not be spent for.

Senator DONNELL. I think S. 472 also provides what they can be spent for but does it in a negative way. It says, as I understand it, taking first section 6 (A), "for all types of current expenditures, excluding interest, debt service, and capital outlay." And then, over in that section 6 (B) it says, "Funds so paid to such State may be disbursed to and expended by such institutions for certain purposes.

So I think a fair meaning of S. 472 is to restrict the expenditures wholly by the prohibition of the use thereof for interest, debt service, and capital outlay, whereas that provision does not appear in S. 199. Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is correct.

However, I am personally convinced that general Federal aid along the lines of S. 199 or S. 472 is the better approach to the problem of discharging the Federal responsibility for assuring a minimum or foundation program of education for all American children and youth.

S. 199 contains two titles. Title I has for its purpose the establishment of a national floor under current school expenditures in public elementary and secondary schools; title II would provide Federal aid to nonpublic schools.

For the first purpose, title I would authorize appropriations of $400,000,000 or $20 per pupil in average daily attendance in 1948, increasing to $1,200,000,000 or $60 per pupil in 1952 and thereafter.

When sections 101 and 102 of S. 199 are considered in connection with the minimum expenditure requirements of section 103 (b), the effect is to bring about a distinct amount of equalization of educational opportunity among the States, i. e., by establishing a national floor under current education expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools of $100 per pupil per year in all States except nine in 1948, in all States except seven in 1949, in all States except five in 1950, in all States except one in 1951, and in all States without exception in 1952.

Moreover, equalization within States; that is, the establishment of a national floor under current educational expenditures per pupil in

S. 81 would authorize grants of $15 per pupil in average daily attendance, payable quarterly to public-school districts making application for the grants. Assuming that most of the eligible 111,273 public-school districts would apply, the appropriation necessary would be approximately $300,000,000. This would make possible salary increases averaging about $400 per teacher, to be distributed among the teachers by any method the local board of education might devise. The bill would not necessarily reduce the competitive disadvantage under which poorer school districts now labor in recruiting and holding well-qualified teachers. As introduced, S. 81 involves serious administrative difficulties. The administrative relationship appears to be almost exclusively between the Office of Education and local school districts rather than between the Office and State educational agencies. I understand, however, that Senator Green has announced his intention to amend this bill on this score.

S. 170 would authorize appropriations of $600,000,000 for supplementing teachers' salaries in public elementary and secondary schools. Payments would be made to the States based on the individual teachers' present salaries, ranging from $250 for a teacher receiving $1,000 at present to $550 for a teacher receiving $4,000. In effect this would result in giving the most aid to the teachers now receiving the largest salaries.

Both bills have provisions designed to assure that the Federal funds will supplement, rather than supplant, existing State and local expenditures for teachers' salaries. S. 170 would tend, however, to freeze existing salary schedules in all States and their local political subdivisions. Many of these salary schedules are in need of revision and adjustment if abler recruits are to be attracted to the teaching profession. Thus S. 170 would tend to perpetuate existing inequities and anomalies in the teacher salary structure. Both bills contain express prohibitions of Federal control, although it is difficult to see how the findings required to be made under section 6 of S. 81 could be handled without Federal interference in thousands of local school districts.

The general purpose of both bills is, of course, a worthy oneto supplement the critically low salaries paid teachers in too many sections of the United States. Teachers' salaries constitute about 75 percent of average current operating expense of public elementary and secondary schools. No one can doubt that Federal aid for supplementing teachers' salaries would be genuine assistance in strengthening education in the States. On the other hand, aid to the States for current expenses of schools would be used largely for teachers' salaries. Senator DONNELL. I beg your pardon for interrupting you. I simply wanted to emphasize at this point your statement that the teachers' salaries constitute about 75 percent of average current operating expense of public elementary and secondary schools. Is that based on a statistical study that your department has made, Doctor? Dr. STUDEBAKER. It is a by and large average throughout the country.

Senator DONNELL. Throughout the country

Dr. STUDEBAKER. The point, obviously, I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that a Federal-aid bill to assist the States with their current expenses would naturally provide largely for teachers' salaries.