Dr. STUDEBAKER. Senator Hill, I have always favored these bills back through the years, so-called equalization bills, and so forth. I think there is a great merit in the general principle of equalization of S. 472. There is this difficulty I have in thinking about such formulas for the long-term: If you change the phraseology and a few of the figures in that bill a bit, then instead of excluding 20 States you exclude 25. Or if you change it a little another way instead of excluding 20 States you would exclude only 15.

Senator HILL. That would be true of any bill.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I still say if we had started out a hundred years ago to build up education we would have universal Federal support of education up to a very satisfactory floor all over the Nation in each local school district. Everybody can understand such a plan. It could be administered equitably and simply. A lot of Federal bureaucrats would not be needed. Such a simple plan would permit every State and the local community to go as far beyond the national floor as they wanted to go.

Again, when we bring boys into the Army, we do not say, let us equalize in terms of the States from which they come.

Senator HILL. But do you not realize the difference there is, that as far as the Army education is concerned the Federal Government has assumed the whole burden and the whole responsibility 100 percent. The Federal Government does the whole thing there, does it not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Suppose the Federal Government does the whole thing up to $150 per pupil in elementary and secondary education, so far as money is concerned. You still would not want them to run the thing, would you?

Senator HILL. No; I certainly would not want them to run it, but I will say this, that as far as I am for Federal aid, as strongly as I am for Federal aid, if you put the Federal Government in a position where they put up most of the money you do rather invite that very thing that all of us want to safeguard against, which is Federal interference of any Federal control.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That depends upon the law you write.

Senator HILL. I realize it may depend upon the law, but after all, when the Federal government begins to put up nearly all the money and assumes a big burden, you see what you spoke of in your testimony. But you go a lot further, as I see it, than anything ever suggested before in my long experience of hearing testimony on this subject and considering bills, of having the Federal Government go into all States on the same basis irrespective of what the wealth or needs of those States may be.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. You are going 50-50 now on vocational education. Senator HILL. Well, but vocational education is a very small thing compared to what we are talking about now, the general education. We stepped up vocational education last year and we thought we made tremendous progress when we stepped it up to about $45,000,000. Senator AIKEN. About $31,000,000.

Senator HILL. Senator Aiken says about $31,000,000. That is certainly not $1,200,000,000, and it may be that it may come to that some day, but I am speaking about it as a practical proposition now, what a tremendous step you propose to take. You are turning this

thing around that we have always conceived that the function of education was the primary responsibility of the State and now you have turned it around to make it the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. If you wanted to, you could pull the $60 down to $40 and the $100 down to $80, and you would reduce that proportion contributed by the Federal Government if you would wish to. Senator HILL. I understand that.

Senator AIKEN. It is not what you want to do; I am talking about what you propose to do.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Those were the figures in the bill.

Senator AIKEN. I think it would be well to have the record show just what this percentage would amount to. Under the compilation under the cost of schools as furnished by the Library of Congress, the cost of schools was around $2,700,000,000. If we add to that the ultimate provided for in S. 199, $1,200,000,000, the total would be about $4,000,000,000, which would not be too much to maintain the schools of this country; that would be roughly between 25 and 30 percent of the cost of the schools being borne by the Federal Government. All the people of the country would be roughly bearing through their Federal Treasury somewhere around 25 to 30 percent of the cost of the schools.

But I want my colleague from Alabama to remember that times have changed and that now the children born in Alabama and Mississippi gravitate to Michigan and California and other States, and that process of gravitation or migration has gone on until now almost 60 percent of all the children born in this country move out of the States where they are born, which emphasizes the national scope of the problem; whereas back 50 years ago the majority of the children stayed in the States where they were born and educated, and if the State did not educate them the State had to bear the penalty.

Senator HILL. And for the very reason stated. That is one of the reasons I am so strong for Federal aid. But my question is whether or not we are prepared and wish to do so and, as a practical matter can do so, to wit, go into these wealthier States with a lot of Federal aid.

Senator AIKEN. But the richer States pay it. We have to pay the bills.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Senator Hill, the general policy that I have always felt should be adopted finally on this matter is more a fiscal policy than what you might call an instructional or educational policy. It would reduce to the simplest terms a method by which to equalize educational opportunity in this country and keep completely out of such legislation any chance of Federal control, and then the Office of Education, as a professional agency engaged in research and consultative service and publications and all the other things that we do, would go about it to do everything possible to put education about education to work, hoping that any idea we have if feasible in a given State would be voluntarily accepted. Everybody in the country should know that they did not have to take any ideas we have.

Now, with that conception, I wonder if you could not write a law that would stick and would keep the Federal Government from trying to control education.

ever, we find that subversive elements are at work in our public schools to undermine our system of economy and form of government, then this legislation should not be in any way seriously considered until we can assure our children a worthwhile American education in our public schools.

In conclusion, let me express my appreciation for the courtesy extended me by this committee through the subcommittee composed of such fine, sincere statesmen as you gentlemen have shown yourselves to be. And let me state also my earnest hope that this Congress will never seriously consider this kind of legislation until they are certain that our public schools are capable of offering to every child in America a truly worth-while and absolutely American education. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

minutes. However, our time has been used up. The committee would be glad to have Mr. Miles submit any statement which he has prepared and if we could have copies made for each member of the committee I am sure they would be interested in it.

However, it does not seem feasible to start hearing another witness at this time and I am sure Mr. Miles will understand. It was only about 2 hours ago that we realized that he desired to testify.

Senator HILL. Was Mr. Miles going to talk about the Everson case? Mr. MILES. No.

(Laughter.)

Senator AIKEN. The committee will now consider the hearings closed except for such material as may be presented to us for incorporation in the record. I am sorry, Mr. Miles, that we did not get around to hearing you this morning, but we will consider your state

ment.

(Mr. Miles submitted the following brief:)

STATEMENT BY FRANKLIN T. MILES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to present my personal views as an individual and as a parent sincerely interested in the educational welfare of our children in the public schools.

So much has been said for and against Federal aid to education that more stress on the reasons against such legislation would be superfluous. While I am definitely opposed to any and all forms of Federal dole and, in particular, to tax money collected from our people in the several States being used to set up a bureaucratic demagog over all education, my opposition is for reasons which have not been touched upon by anyone so far in these hearings.

First, let us define these terms, to see if we mean the same things. To my mind "Federal aid" is only tax money collected from people in the States. "Education" in terms of this legislation means only formal, prescribed courses of study in our various public schools. If we are agreed on that, then let us see where such definitions would lead. We find that the phrase "Federal aid to education" actually means "tax money collected from people in the States being used to help every child study formal, prescribed courses of study in our schools." Are the present formal, prescribed courses of study in our schools sufficiently adequate and desirable to deserve the risk and hazard presented by this legislation of centralized control of our entire educational system?

Just this past Wednesday, the United States Chamber of Commerce, during a discussion of this question here at the Statler Hotel, heard the Honorable Gov. Kim Sigler, of Michigan, make a remarkably fine address. Among other surprising facts the governor stated he also said he was amazed at the lack of comprehension and understanding by high-school graduates of the ordinary governmental functions of the various political bodies. The governor further stated that these high-school graduates, ready to go out into the world and make their living should have been much better prepared, and he suggested adding two more years to the present high-school course to achieve this purpose.

It seemed odd to me then that the Governor of Michigan did not suggest a direct investigation into our public schools to find out just what is being taught, if anything. Unless the teaching methods and subjects taught are strengthened to the point of making them worth while in their results, the plan of adding two additional years to an admittedly weak course of study can only serve to further extend the futile farce of modern "progressive" education. This same objection is likewise true of the plan proposed by this legislation to dump tax money collected from people in the States into the admittedly weak and insufficient courses of study found in all public schools clinging to the so-called progressive education with its social studies and social sciences.

Therefore, the thought I wish to leave with you is that we should first, on a local, community, or State level, look into our schools and see what is being taught and the results of such teaching. If and when we find the results of such teaching entirely satisfactory, then we would be in position to work for an equal opportunity for all children to benefit by such satisfactory schooling. If, how

I would be very grateful to you if you would have the following statement concerning S. 472 incorporated in and made a part of the printed hearings on the said bill.

South Carolina is in most urgent need of Federal aid to education. When we face realistically such facts as: There are 590 children per every 1,000 adults to be educated in South Carolina as compared with 280 for California and 388 for the United States as a whole. that South Carolina has an income of only $950 behind each child 5 to 17 years of age compared with $5,130 for Nevada and an average of $2,534 for the United States, and that the average income in South Carolina was $576 compared with the national average of $1,031 for 1943, it is very evident that it is impossible for South Carolina to furnish educational opportunities for its youth equal to those found in the wealthier States.

South Carolina exerts much greater financial effort to support its school system than the majority of States, yet its actual expenditures for education are very low in comparison with what they should be.

If we, in this great country of ours, are to make any noticeable progress in the eradication of ignorance and poverty, then we must offer more equitable educational opportunities to the youth of the Nation.

South Carolina's Governor, J. Strom Thurmond, in his inaugural address on January 21, 1947, had the following to say in reference to Federal aid for public education:

"I favor Federal aid for public education, with the understanding that such aid should be without Federal control and the State public-school system remain entirely under the control of the State. It is a disturbing fact that if we in South Carolina spend all our public revenue for the support of education, we should still not be able to give our children the advantages enjoyed by children in many other States. South Carolina has the greatest percentage of children of school age of all the States in the United States, and since the children of one State may become citizens of another State, it is appropriate that their education be financed by taxpayers everywhere. The Federal Government has been providing assistance to education since 1862, when grants were made for the establishment of agricultural colleges, and increasingly since that time large appropriations have been made for the support of some specific form of education such as agriculture, home economics, trade and industrial, and vocational rehabilitation. It is illogical to oppose Federal aid for education and at the same time advocate Federal aid for road construction and other purposes. The fear of Federal aid to education is without foundation, for we shall have more Federal control without it than with it, because the effect of Federal court decisions requiring equalization as between the races will cost the State much more money and consequently lower the quality of the total school program unless aid is received from Federal resources."

Very sincerely yours,

J. M. CHERRY,
Director of Public Relations,

South Carolina Education Association.

DENVER, COLO., May 9, 1947.

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Education,

Senate Office Building.

May I present the following statement in the hope that it may be included in the record of proceedings for the hearings on Federal aid for education?

"The Colorado Education Association, the official spokesman for the teachers of Colorado, has repeatedly passed resolutions in support of Federal aid for public education. This support is growing in intensity not only from teachers but from a majority of the citizens who are becoming alarmed with the serious threats to their childrens future welfare.

"It is not our purpose to again fill the proceedings with data and arguments showing the need for this legislation, but we do want to make a brief statement for the record.

"We believe that (1) the passage of S. 472 would be one of the most significant steps forward ever taken by any Congress (2) the passage of S. 472 would be the soundest investment ever made by Congress and would be our best insurance in the maintenance of a high National income and general prosperity.