PER PUPIL COSTS FOR CURRENT EXPENSES) ADAPTING THE IDEA OF A NATIONAL LEVEL FLOOR TO THE PRESENT SITUATION

REQUIRED STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL
OPTIONAL STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL

FEDERAL AID PER PUPIL

Now, that is a typical picture that has long been in existence in the United States. It shows as the result of all the years of effort what the States feel they can afford to invest in elementary and secondary education.

Senator AIKEN. Those results will be found in column 3 of the tables which have just been presented to the committee this morning. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Now, with that chart in mind I will pass on to another.

I have often asked myself, as perhaps you men have, what might have happened with respect to the support of public education in this country if 100 years ago, let us say, the people generally had had as much interest in public education as they have today.

What I have tried to do on this chart is to show what might have been done if at that time the public generally had had the interest in education that the public now expresses.

It might have been that the Congress then would have said, what many States have said since with respect to local communities within the State the Congress might have said, "We will appropriate $10 a year or $20 a year per pupil for every pupil in average daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools of every State and let-the States go as far beyond that as they could."

Now, it might have happened that by some policy of that kind through the years a national level floor of $100 per pupil might have been established in all States. But I think you never would have said that you want equalization carried to such a point that while providing, let us say, $100 per pupil in each State, you would not permit any State to spend any more than that.

Therefore, what this chart shows is a possible $100 minimum that the Government might have provided and then these expenses merely show the information taken from the other chart indicating what the States are actually now expending.

Senator HILL. Of course, in the States where you have the equalization funds, the States permit the counties or local communities to go further if they see fit.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. And that is the American way, is it not?
Senator HILL. Surely.

Senator AIKEN. Do you think there is any such thing as absolute equalizing of educational facilities likely or possible regardless of what formula or plan might be adopted?

Is it not inevitable that some schools will be better than others in every State?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. And I think that is quite a wholesome thing. We should provide a very desirable guaranteed floor under the education of every child, otherwise we shall not continue to carry on this great experiment, this great program of experimentation with new ways of doing business, and moreover I have discovered that education in some communities affects people in such a way as to induce them to do novel things in education and when they do the novel thing, the rest of us tend to pick it up. That is the democratic process at work.

Senator HILL. I think that you seek what most of us on the committee seek a defensible minimum. You used those very words in your statement and I think that is exactly it, that every child might

have a defensible minimum of opportunity for education. Is that correct?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is correct.

Senator AIKEN. Having once established a minimum floor under education, you would keep the competitive spirit alive in education just as you would in industry or any other factor of our economy. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Exactly so.

Senator AIKEN. And in that way we would constantly be striving to improve our education.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. All the time.

Now, this third chart, members of the committee, is merely an attempt to compare what might have been done with what your bill does.

Your bill starts out with a small amount for pupils per year-$20and builds it up to $60. That black portion, then, down there, represents the guaranteed floor under the education of every child in each local school district of every State in the Union provided by the Federal Government.

Senator DONNELL. You are referring to S. 199?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; S. 199. This is a graphic representation of S. 199.

This section, by the way, right here now [indicating] shows what every State would have to provide out of State and local sources. Senator HILL. Would be required to?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is correct.

Now, these projected lines merely indicate again what those other States are now spending. So what you get is a marked equalization effect. You raise all these States up to this level, not prohibiting some other States from going beyond if they desire.

Now, at this point I think is a good place to comment on one point I had in my formal remarks, and I think it is significant, something that ought to be very carefully looked at. It is this question of the utilization of a Federal grant for the purpose of offsetting State and local taxes.

I think it ought to be understood that that principle has been in operation in this country for a long time and even in the field of grants for educational purposes.

You will recall that the land-grant college acts provide flat sums of money in one case to all land-grant colleges, $50,000 per land-grant college in every State, and then later additions or supplements, amendments to the laws, provided additional amounts of money on the basis of population or some other index, for all States.

I think it is fair to say that when my own State of Iowa, or New York or Pennsylvania, annually receives from our office the money granted to the land-grant colleges, the taxpayers of those respective States are experiencing to that extent an offset from what otherwise would have been higher direct State and local taxes for the support of the land-grant colleges. The same principle operates in the vocational education acts. Every State gets money from the Government under the vocational education acts, and I have no doubt some of the States would have programs approximating in cost the cost of the present vocational educational programs if there were not any Federal grants. If that is so, and I think it is, to that extent then the Federal grant helps offset State and local taxes for education.

Now, that is a typical picture that has long been in existence in the United States. It shows as the result of all the years of effort what the States feel they can afford to invest in elementary and secondary education.

Senator AIKEN. Those results will be found in column 3 of the tables which have just been presented to the committee this morning. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Now, with that chart in mind I will pass on to another.

I have often asked myself, as perhaps you men have, what might have happened with respect to the support of public education in this country if 100 years ago, let us say, the people generally had had as much interest in public education as they have today.

What I have tried to do on this chart is to show what might have been done if at that time the public generally had had the interest in education that the public now expresses.

It might have been that the Congress then would have said, what many States have said since with respect to local communities within the State the Congress might have said, "We will appropriate $10 a year or $20 a year per pupil for every pupil in average daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools of every State and let-the States go as far beyond that as they could."

Now, it might have happened that by some policy of that kind through the years a national level floor of $100 per pupil might have been established in all States. But I think you never would have said that you want equalization carried to such a point that while providing, let us say, $100 per pupil in each State, you would not permit any State to spend any more than that.

Therefore, what this chart shows is a possible $100 minimum that the Government might have provided and then these expenses merely show the information taken from the other chart indicating what the States are actually now expending.

Senator HILL. Of course, in the States where you have the equalization funds, the States permit the counties or local communities to go further if they see fit.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. And that is the American way, is it not?
Senator HILL. Surely.

Senator AIKEN. Do you think there is any such thing as absolute equalizing of educational facilities likely or possible regardless of what formula or plan might be adopted?

Is it not inevitable that some schools will be better than others in every State?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. And I think that is quite a wholesome thing. We should provide a very desirable guaranteed floor under the education of every child, otherwise we shall not continue to carry on this great experiment, this great program of experimentation with new ways of doing business, and moreover I have discovered that education in some communities affects people in such a way as to induce them to do novel things in education and when they do the novel thing, the rest of us tend to pick it up. That is the democratic process at work.

Senator HILL. I think that you seek what most of us on the committee seek a defensible minimum. You used those very words in your statement and I think that is exactly it, that every child might