No. 4138 October 8, 1941 EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY By JOSEPH M. RAY, Ph.D. A Handbook for Interscholastic League Debaters Bureau of Public School Extracurricular Activities Division of Extension . ''1 • T,)' L . l' ... ·~ T ,, •, ( PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN No. 4138: October 8, 1941 EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY By JOSEPH M. RAY, Ph.D. A Handbook for Interscholastic League Debaters Bureau of Public School Extracurricular Activities Division of Extension PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH AND ENTERED AS SECOND·CLASS MATTER AT THE POST OFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of uaeful knowledge, generally diffuaec:I through a community, are euential to the preservation of a free govern­ ment. Sam Houston Cultivated mind ia the 1ruardian genius of Democracy, and while guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man. It ia the only dictator that freemen ac­knowledge, and the only security which freemen desire. Mirabeau B. Lamar CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTI0 N -------­----­-----------­------­---­------­----­-------------­----------­--------­- 5 AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF --------­-----------------­------------------------------------­-----­ 7 NEGATIVE BRIEF ----------­-------------------­--­---­----­--­-----­-------------­----­-----­ 17 EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS Debating the "Federal Aid to Education" Question 1. by Horton Talley ----------------------------­-----------------­----­---­---­2. by S. Stanley Knapp____ _ ________________________________________________ 27 37 3. by Otis L. Hilliard ------------------------------------------------------------38 Federal Aid and Public Education: An analysis by C. Allen True --------------------------------------------------------------------------41 GENERAL READING MATERIAL Federal Aid, by Austin F. Macdonald______________________________________ 51 Federal Aid to Education, by S. B. McAlister______________________ 54 Analysis of th"e Federal Aid to Education Act of' 1939, by Elbert D. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------65 The Plan of Apportionment in S. 1305, by Floyd W. Reeves___ 75 Proposed Apportionment of Funds under S. 1305 by Floyd W. Reeves -----------------------------------------------------------79 Educational Finance Act of 194L_____ _________________________________ __ _ 88 U.S. Senate Bill 1313-Digest of Educational Finance Act of 1941, by L. D. Stokes ------------------------------------------------------------96 Texas Educational Needs, by L. A. Woods_________ _________________ ___ 99 The Findings of the Advisory Committee on Education, by Floyd W. Reeves ---------------------------------------------------------------------106 WHAT THEY SAY IN TEXAS Endorsement with an "if," C. Perry Patterson_________ _______________ 131 Wants Question Interpreted, by E. E. Oberholtzer________________ 131 Get Money Where it is: Spend Where needed, by Harold Brenho1tz _ ___--------------__ ____---------------------------------------------------------132 What Will States Do? by B. F. Pittenger________________________________ ____ 133 Get Money but Retain Control, by I. E. Stutsman________________ 133 Leave Control to States, by Frank Young________________________________ 134 Pro and Con, by E. O. Tanner____________________________________________________ 134 Surrender Some Control, by Richard J. Turrentine____ ___________ 134 Impossible to Equalize, by W. R. Davis__ ________________________________ 135 Equalization Means Democracy, by W. B. Irvin_ _ _______ ________ 136 Equal Educational Opportunity for All, by H. W. Morelock____ 136 Nine Reasons Against Proposal, by J. W. Pender_____________ 137 Pro and Con, by E. 0. Wiley___________________________________________________ ___ 137 Money Grants Presuppose Control, by Julius Dorsey____________ 138 Safeguard Local Control, by T. S. Montgomery______________ 138 Money Without Domination, by J. Elmer Cox.__________________________139 The University of Texas Publication PAGE AFFIRMATIVE READING MATERIAL Why I Favor S. 1305, by Elbert D. Thomas________________ ___________ 141 On Fede~al Aid, by Homer P. Rainey_________________ 154 The National Education Asosciation Favors Federal Aid, by Howard A. Dawson_ __________________ _______________________ 155 New Problems in Financing Negro Education by Research Division, National Education Ass'n_ _ ______________ 170 Equal Educational Opportunity for Youth, by Newton Edwards ---------------------------------------------------------------------------178 Texas-a Colony of Manhattan, by Robert H. Montgomery____ 181 Divided We Stand, by Walter Prescott Webb____ _____ _____ __ _______ 187 Absentee Ownership in the South, by Allen J. Ellender__ ________ 188 A Statement in Answer to Objections to S. 1313, by Howard A. Dawson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------189 The Inequalities of Educational Opportunity, by Jack. R. Morton ---------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------198 A Texan Looks at Federal Aid, by L. D. Stokes______________________ 200 NEGATIVE READING MATERIAL Why I Oppose S. 1305, by Robt. A. Taft__ _________________________ __ ____ 203 I Oppose Equalizing Educational Opportunity, by David I. Walsh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------208 The Real Peril of Federal Subsidies, by John J. Tigert_____ 220 Some Objections to the Federal Aid to Education Act of 1939, by Gould Wickey________________________________________ 227 My Objections to the Educational Finance Act of 1941, by George W. Robnett________________________________________________________________ 231 Administration of Education in Italy, by I. L. KandeL__________ 236 Bureaucratic Control, Editorial, Chicago Tribune__ 239 S. 1313 Will Result in Federal Control, by Amos A. Fries______ 240 No Federal Aid Now, by George Johnson________________________________ 243 Let's Stop this "Fifty-fifth" Business, by James W. Wads­worth ___________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------245 Federal Subsidies for Education, by Alexander Inglis______________ 250 Mr. Hutchins is Wrong, by Donald J. Cowling________________________ 254 The Church League of America Disapproves of Senate Bill 1305, by George W. Robnett________________________________ _____________ 257 Federal "Aid," by Douglas Sutherland________ ________________________ 259 Federal Controls Endanger Community Schools, by Arthur B. Moehlman ---------------------------------------------------------270 BIBLIOGRAPHY Government Publications -------------------------------------------------275 Books -----------------------------------------------------------------277 Agencies Which May Supply Materials____ _ _____ ________ ______________ 281 INTRODUCTION WE ARE TOLD by a great Englishman that "good argu­ment is a sharp process of investigation, leading by mutual criticism to some nearer ascertainment of truth." Some one complained to a German philosopher, saying that disputes did not have "truth" as their aim, but merely a winning by one side or the other, to which the philosopher replied, "before the dispute no one knows where the truth is." Preparation for debate should begin, as the English writer suggests, with a sharp process of investigation. The question posed in the present query is, why shouldn't poor children, (or rather poor communities in which there is a disproportionate share of children) be educated at the expense of the richer communities? Seems reasonable, doesn't it? But the sharp process of investigation soon reveals that we are dealing with a national policy here which if applied in one field might, with disastrous results, be applied in others. We begin to find out that the person who "pays the piper calls the tune," and local autonomy, a democratic slogan from the founding of the republic, is seriously threatened by accepting subsides with strings to them. And so on. Through the 275 pages of this bulletin, this question of policy is argued pro and con by competent individuals representing all shades of opinion and all sorts and conditions of men and women in American life. Figuratively, a proper debate question may be compared to a seed. To look at, it is small and insignificant, and may even appear trivial, but like the fertile seed of a sturdy plant, it germinates and developes almost magically if given the proper attention. We believe that this is true of the question which the schools of Texas selected this year for interscholastic debating. The first great expansion of the question which a proper study brings about lies in the field of economics. Why are some communities poor and others overflowing with surplus riches? What parts of this great country are found to be economically unable to educate The University of Texas Publication their children? Why? Do the people have the hookworm, or are they simply onery and undeserving of a share of the goods of this world? What's the matter with them? Turn the eye to the other side of the picture, and see what com­munities are rich, and try to find out why they are rich? What common interests have the rich and the poor com­munities of this country which would make the present query at all plausible? Dig into these questions and pres­ently we are in the presence of an expanding and very interesting field of knowledge, and certainly a field of knowledge of enough content in itself to count for a credit in any public high school in Texas. Now go into the democratic theory of local autonomy. Upon what is it based? How did it come about historically? Do we run into the old States' Rights theory in this sharp process of investigation? How would the great field of religious or church education be affected by the adoption of this proposal? Are we ready to accept the direction of the Federal Government in the field of public secondary educa­tion to the same extent as we do, for illustration, in the field now occupied by the land grant colleges? These illustrations indicate quite inadequately the fields of knowledge into which a sharp process of investigation will lead the directors and their debate classes in pursuing "negative" and "affirmative" sides of the present question. Itis quite enough to challenge the intelligent and ambitious director and his more talented pupils. The stage is set for competitive endeavor, and the "opposition" will be as strong as the Texas high schools can produce. It is no trial to be entered into lightly or entered into at all by the lazy and inept. Really, Emerson was not talking to everybody in the admonition, "hitch your wagon to a star." Had he been, it would have caused no disasters, since heroic advice ap­peals only to the heroic. It simply doesn't register with the others, and that is just as well. ~ DIRECTOR. AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF~ Resolved, That the Federal Goverrvment should adopt the policy of equalizing educational opportunity throughout the Nation by means of annual grants to the sev·eral States for public elementary and secondary schools. I. It is urgently necessary for the Federal Government to give aid to the States to equalize educational opportunity. A. Something should be done now about improving the dark spots of education in the United States. 1. The greatest guarantee of America is ah educated citizenry. 2. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a speech before the National Education Association, said, "Our aid for many reasons, financial and otherwise, must be confined to lifting the level at the bottom rather than giving assistance at the top." 3. Hon. Paul V. McNutt, Federal Security Administrator, says, "We cannot put educational opportunity for our children in cold storage for the duration of the war, or even of a period of financial stress, and restore it later to an unschooled generation grown old." 4. According to Clifton H. Scott, President of Federal Education Legislative Agency, America spends annuauy $4,000,000,000 on liquor, $1,600,000,000 on tobacco, $1,200,000,000 on movies, and $2,000,000,000 on soft drinks, chewing gum and candy. According to these figures we should be able to spend a great deal more than the $2,200,000,000 we now spend on educating our boys and girls. B. The quality of education in any system is always in direct proportion to the financial support given to our schools. President Franklin D. Roosevelt says, "We all know that the best schools are, in most cases, located in those communities which can afford to spend the most money on them, the most money for adequate teachers' salaries, for modern buildings, and for modern equipment of all kinds." C. Educational opportunity is much less in some States than in others. 1. Dr. Howard A. Dawson, Director of Rural Service, National Education Association, says: *The quotations in both the affirmative and negative briefs are taken in the main from the Hearings before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor in March, 1939, on Senate Bill 1305 and in April, 1941, on Senate Bill 1313. The University of Texas Publication a. "The average school term averages from 9¥.a months in the highest State to 61h months in the lowest State. . . . There are over 1,000,000 children enrolled in schools that are in session less than 6 months per year. b. "If high schools were universally available and at­tended, the maximum high-school enrollment would constitute about 33% per cent of the total elementary and secondary enrollment. In the highest State the high-school enrollment is now 30.9 per cent of the total enrollment, while in the lowest State it is only 10.6 per cent. There are 12 States that have high-school enrollments exceeding 25 per cent of their total enroll­ment, while there are 11 States that have less than 16 per cent. c. "There are in the Nation about 2,750,000 children for whom there are no public-school facilities provided. There are nearly another 2,750,000 that are attending school only part time because of inadequate building facilties. d. "In one State only 0.8 per cent of the population over 10 years of age are illiterate, while in another State 14.9 per cent of the population over 10 years old are illiterate.... The first State has for decades spent approximately three times as much per child for public schools as the second State has spent. The differences in per capita wealth and income of these two States are about as great as the differences in public-school expenditures. e. "Average annual expenditures per pupil for curent operating costs in the highest State, $137.69, and the lowest, $24.50. In this respect there are 13 States in which the average expenditure per pupil exceeds $85, while there are 12 States that fall below $50. f. "The average annual salary per teacher in the highest State is $2,361, and in the lowest State $465. In this . respect there are 11 States that exceed $1,400 and 12 States that fall below $750. g. "The value of public-school property per pupil attend­ing school is $570 in the highest State and $62 in the lowest. There are 16 States that have school property exceeding a value of $300 per pupil, while 11 States fall below $150. h. "The differences in the breadth of educational oppor­tunity, resulting from the differences reflected by the statistical data cited above, are correspondingly great." 2. Senator Elbert D. Thomas of Utah says that a. There are still more illiterates than college graduates in the United States. b. One-third of all the counties in the United States, containing 45,000,000 people, have no libraries at all. c. Wealth per school child in the various States ranges from $21,582 in the highest State to $2,819 in the low­est, with 12 States in excess of $12,500 while 11 have less than $6,600 per child. d. Average income in the various States ranges from $3,766 per school child in the highest to $495 in the lowest. Eleven of the ·highest States have in excess of $2,500 income per child and the 11 lowest have less than $1,200." 3. Dr. Frank P. Graham, President, University of North Carolina, says: "In 1930 the farm people in the United States obtained 9 per cent of the Nation's income and yet supported 31 per cent of the Nation's children. South­eastern farm people with approximately 4,250,000 children received 2 per cent of the national income while North­eastern nonfarm people with approximately 8,500,000 children received 42 per cent of the national income." D. The ability to finance education is much less in some States than in others. 1. Dr. Floyd W. Reeves, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Education, says: "In 1900 the ability of the richest State to support education was about 10 times as great as the ability of the poorest State. In 1912 again it was 10 times. In 1922 it dropped down to a ratio of 5 to 1, and then in 1934 it went up again to a ratio of 6 to 1. . . . The richest State always had 5 or more times as much ability to support education as the poorest State." 2. John W. Studebaker, United States Commissioner of Education, says: "Any reasonable measure of tax-paying ability applied to the several States shows how greatly the States vary in their financial ability. For example, in round numbers $24 per capita can be raised annually in South Carolina by applying the second model-tax plan of the National Tax Association, $20 in Alabama, and $18 in Mississippi, as compared to $68 in Montana, $77 in Iowa, and $109 in Nevada." 3. Dr. Frank P. Graham, President, University of North Carolina, says: "The State of South Carolina, if it took all of its general fund and put it into the public-school fund, would not reach the national average of the United States. . . . Take a child that lives in New Rochelle, New The University of Texas Publication York, and has more than $220 a year spent on his educa­ tion. There are children in Mississippi where the people have to struggle with a high tax rate to get $20 a child." E. The States which can least afford to finance education have the most children: 1. Senator Josh Lee of Oklahoma says, "In this country the kids are where the money ain't." 2. Senator Elbert D. Thomas of Utah says that a. With respect to children between the ages of 5 and 17, South Carolina has 739 to 1,000 adults, California 319 to 1,000 adults. b. The Northeast States have 420 children 5 to 17 per 1,000 adults, while the Southeast States have 603 per 1,000. Thus the educational burden of the people of the Southeast is 1.45 times the burden of the people of the Northeast. c. Almost invariably the smaller the per capita tax-paying ability in a State, the larger the number of children in ratio to the number of adults. d. On the farms the percentage of children runs higher. The birth rate in the seven largest cities is 40 % short of enough to maintain their population (they continue to grow by migration); but on the farm there are born over 50% more than enough to maintain the farm population as it is. F. There are certain recent developments which render more urgent the need for equalizing educational opportunity. 1. The defense program has caused population maladjust­ments, and this results in inadequate schools in defense areas. 2. Recent developments in Negro education bid fair to cost the South heavily. a. Supreme Court decisions have held that educational facilities furnished to Negroes must be equal to those furnished to whites. b. Other Supreme Court decisions have held that the States cannot (as they have done hitherto) establish lower salary scales for negro teachers than for white teachers. 3. Another recent development is the discovery that countless children of migratory farm workers are receiving no education at all. The need is urgent, for as it is we are developing a wandering, ignorant, peasant class of people that we like to think cannot be in America. II. Economic differences between States and regions prevent equaliza­tion of educational opportunities except through Federal grants. A. Our economic system has become entirely national and works to the advantage of the North and East. 1. Modern methods of transportation, communication, travel, newspapers, railways, telephone and telegraph have unified our national life. 2. Edward A. O'Neal, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, says, "About 40 per cent of the young people living on farms. move to the cities and towns," and most of the people leaving the farm come from the South. Thus our population is mobile and we are becoming more of a social unit. 3. The system works to the advantage of the Northern and Eastern States. a. A farmer buying farm machinery pays tribute to the East. b. Professor Walter P. Webb says that patents, tariffs, and Civil War pensions have helped the Northeast dominate the country. c. Dr. Will W. Alexander, Federal Security Agency, says, "The South has been penalized in freight rates and everything else." d. Senator Elbert D. Thomas says that many States are colonies of the big money markets. e. Dr. James W. Martin, Revenue Commissioner of Ken­tucky, says that corporations owned in New York and Delaware and complicated by holding-company set-ups really dominate the economic life of the country; and the result is that the Southern and Western States cannot raise sufficient money by taxation to support good schools. f. Miss Elizabeth B. Herring, Rural Secretary, National Y. W. C. A., says that there are 8,500,000 sharecrop­pers, tenants and farm laborers in the South receiving an income of less than $200 per year per family. g. Mrs. Albert Thomas, Alabama Congress of Parents and Teachers, says: "Speaking for the South, we are not proud of our status as the problem child of the Nation. But neither do we come as mendicants to the family table. We have not spent the family fortune in riotous living. It has been drained from our large rural areas to the metropolitan centers. It has been drained in high interest rates, in exploitation of our natural re­sources, in unequal freight rates, in our manpower which has left us at the age of productivity to give its best years to other sections." B. Federal aid to education is the only way in which the unfair effect of our economic system upon education in the poorer States can be corrected. 1. Hon. Paul V. McNutt, Federal Security Administrator, says that the problem cannot be solved "without funds from the Federal Government." 2. When a bad financial situation arises in this country, only the Federal Government can handle it; it was the Federal Government which tided education over during the depres­sion. 3. The States have tried many ways to correct the bad effect by which our economic system siphons money off to the Northeast. Dr. Robert H. Montgomery of The University of Texas says, "Obviously the State Governments are not adequate for this task. It is the job of the Federal Gov­ernment." And one way in which it can be done is for Washington to aid education in the States. 4. President Frank P. Graham of the University of North Carolina says, "The Federal Government is the only agency which can redress this economic and educational imbalance between the metropolitan areas of the greatest concentration of wealth and the rural areas of the greatest concentration of children in proportion to adult population." 5. Furthermore, according to Dr. John K. Norton of Columbia University, it is good business for New York to help raise educational standards elsewhere because better edu­cation will raise earning power, and then New York can sell more goods and business will be better. CII. The National Government has long had an interest in education, and the extension of its interest and influence in education is desirable. A. The United States has long had an interest in education. 1. Paul V. McNutt says: "The progress of American edu­cation is inextricably interwoven with Federal aid. . .. The Morrill-Nelson Act (1862 and 1890), appropriating funds for land-grant colleges and universities; the Hatch Act (1887), appropriating money for the establishment of agricultural experiment stations in connection with land-grant colleges; the Smith-Lever Act (1914) and the Capper-Ketcham Act (1928), providing for agricultural extension work through land-grant colleges; and the Smith-Hughes Act (1917) and subsequent similar acts for vocational education in agriculture, trades, and indus­tries, home economics and distributive occupations all illus­trate a fundamental interest of the Federal Government in the fostering of public education." B. Our Nation must become more unified to preserve our democracy. 1. Our democracy cannot survive without adequate educa­tion; thus the Nation is vitally interested in helping education. 2. Education is the force which we need to weld the Nation together. 3. The nurturing and development of our human resources is the most important task confronting our Government. C. The National Government is interested in education because the mobility of our population makes education a national issue. 1. Senator Elbert D. Thomas says that our population is mobile and poor education in one State is felt elsewhere. He says that 25,388,100 persons born in the United States live now in States other than those where they were born. Of the 327,706 Negroes living in New York City, he says, 44,471 were born in Virginia. 2. Congressman John J. Sparkman of Alabama says he once heard a Northerner say this: "If you want mules­you raise them and send them to us and we pay you all the expenses for raising those mules and sending them to us, but if you raise children and send them to us to compete in industry, you have prepared them and educated them ... and you stood all of the expenses." 3. Dr. John K. Norton of Columbia says that a large per­centage of the Negroes of Harlem come from areas where there is no vocational training, and they become a relief problem in New York City. 4. Dr. Floyd Reeves argues that if the Northeast should contribute toward the cost of educating children in the other sections, it would really be helping to educate many of its own future citizens. D. Improved education would reduce crime, and thus would tend indirectly to pay for itself. 1. Most crimes are committed by uneducated people. 2. It has been estimated that the annual cost of crime in the United States is fifteen billions of dollars. a. Irving R. Kuenzli of the American Federation of Teachers says, "A cut of 6 per cent in our annual tribute to crime would equal the amount required to give every teacher in this country an increase in salary of $1,000 a year." b. A reduction of 1 per cent in the annual crime bill of the United States would be equal to more than enough to finance any Federal aid to education bill that has been proposed. IV. The criticisms of Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity are not valid. A. Undesirable Federal control will not result. 1. President Roosevelt says, "It has been, and, I take it, it will continue to be, the traditional policy of the United States to leave the actual management of schools and their curricula to State and local control." 2. Senator Thomas said of Senate Bill No. 1305, "The bill contains the safeguards necessary to insure that funds will be spent by the States only for the purposes for which they are appropriated. On the other hand, it con­tains stringent provisions to prohibit any Federal admin­istrative official from exerting control." 3. Dr. Howard A. Dawson said of Senate Bill 1313 (1941), "the sole duty of the Board of Apportionment is to deter­mine the financial needs of each of the States. The Board would be in session not to exceed 60 days annually. After a certification to the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount of money to go to each State, it has nothing further whatever to do with the administration of Fed­eral aid." 4. Paul V. McNutt says that the Federal Government has been aiding education for eighty years without any unde­sirable controls. 5. An exhaustive examination of all our experience with Federal aid to the States will show that there has been no undesirable Federal control. Such control as has been exerted was only in the interest of economy, improved service, and the public welfare. Those who decry every effort of the Federal Government to adopt a new policy overlook the simple fact that it is our Government, too, and it in reality is more effectively responsible to us, its citizens, than are the State Governments. The Govern­ment at Washington is not some hateful foreign potentate or dictator. It is the sum-total of all the you's and me's in the country. And if it doesn't do the right thing, we will put somebody else in charge of it. 6. What if the Federal Government does control? Its con­trol is not undesirable. Its control of highway construc­tion and old-age pensions has resulted only in improve­ments. B. Inequalities are not due to lack of interest and effort on the part of the low States. 1. Senator Elbert D. Thomas says that if all States put their financial houses in order, the situation would be just as bad as it is now. 2. Professor Jack R. Morton of Mississippi State College says that the Southern States pay more for education in proportion to their total revenue than do any of the States which spend most in dollars for education. C. A model tax system used as a yard-stick to measure a State's ability to support education is not an interference with the States. 1. Professor Paul R. Mort of Columbia Teachers College says that ten years ago people argued that the poorer States could finance education. if they would revise their tax systems, but the model tax system shows that this is not true. "The total yield of a reasonable tax rate on a model tax plan in these States wouldn't even support the schools at a decent level." 2. Such a method of measurement of ability is the only fair way to determine what share of the Federal aid a given State deserves. It affords the only fair way to "equalize educational opportunity." D. It is not unfair to ask the Northeast to help educate the children of other sections because many of the children involved will later migrate and become citizens of the North and East. E. The argument that we should maintain a shoddy educational system so that hardship and adversity will raise up some modern Abe Lincolns is not valid. Dr. John K. Norton of Columbia University says: "I wonder if you want to gen­eralize on the basis of a few exceptional cases. For every Lincoln who rises in spite of his handicaps, how many are there who never rise who might well have risen?" F. There is no reason for church people to squabble over Federal aid. 1. Government money will not go to parochial schools, since they are net "public schools." 2. Catholic schools have no right to demand a share, since their children could get a fair share by attending public schools. G. Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity is not im­practical. 1. Our Government is spending billions of dollars every year, and education is as important as any of the things money is being spent for. 2. The model tax system devised by the authors of Senate Bills 1305 and 1313 as a means of apportioning Federal The University of Texas Publication aid according to need is a fair, equitable, and fool-proof method of getting the job done. H. The objection that equalizing educational opportunity is not a good way to help correct the inequities resulting from the way our economic system works is not valid. Regardless of the causes of such inequities, we should continue to devise methods of counteracting them. I. The argument that equalizing educational opportunity would be unfair to the rich States will not hold. Monopolies, tariffs, patents, pensions, railroad rates, absentee ownership, holding companies-all of these, as a direct result of gov­ernment policy, have reduced the State of Texas to a position as a colony of Manhattan. It is only fair and just that we seek now not to work another injustice but to rectify and correct one that already exists. J. The argument that Federal aid will bring dictatorship is absurd. Such an argument shows a misunderstanding of the process by which revolution comes. Revolution comes only when government breaks down-when it fails to get the job done. Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Com­munism in Russia all came when the government was ready to collapse. The advocates of Federal aid seek to make government more efficient. They will help it to get the job done better. And if the job is being done well, the govern­ment won't collapse, revolution won't come, and dictatorship is more remote than ever. The opponents of Federal aid would restrict us to a shoddy and half-baked educational system and make the collapse of our society possible, and thus they, and not the proponents of Federal aid, bring us closer to dictatorship. NEGATIVE BRIEF I. Federal aid would result in Federal control over our educational system. A. Many authorities believe that Federal aid would result in Federal control. 1. Professor Boyd H. Bode of Ohio State University says we should not buy Federal support at the price of Fed­eral control. 2. Major General Amos A. Fries, of the Friends of the Public Schools of America, says Federal aid will build up a permanent personnel in the various States which would be supported by Washington and sent there to be influenced by the Commissioner of Education. 3. The National Municipal Review warned that the schools "should not be turned over to the ministrations of a Federal bureaucracy and log-rolling Congressmen." 4. Cathrine Curtis, National Chairman of the Mothers National Executive Committee, says that Federal aid represents "a new attack upon our educational system by the forces of bureaucratic centralization and educa­tional regimentation under the false front of 'to strengthen the national defense.'" 5. W. W. Trent, State Superintendent of West Virginia, says, "The fact that the present bill disclaims any intent to vest control of education in the Federal Government does not dispell our fears." 6. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio says, "It is too much to hope that any Federal Com.missioner of Education dispensing $200,000,000 a year is going to let the people of each school district decide how they will run their schools." 7. Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts says, "Our public-school systems would be gradually but no less inex­orably drawn more and more under the thumb of Federal bureaucracy." B. There are many objections to Federal control. 1. Senator Walsh says uniform educational opportunities have never existed except in totalitarian States because public education is primarily a local responsibility. 2. Federal control would violate the spirit of the Constitu­tion. The Daughters of the American Revolution passed a resolution in 1941 in "opposition to legislation that would take from the States the responsibility and control The University of Texas Publication over education-powers reserved to them by the Con­stitution." 3. Control of education by a bureaucracy, far from the people, would be undesirable. a. Senator Walsh says the final result will be "a nation­alization of our educational facilities and Federalized bureaucratic control." b. Discussion of model tax systems to measure educa­tional need shows control going beyond mere edu­cation and actually permitting Federal bureaucrats to pass judgment on a State's tax system. In the long run it will force the Legislature to accept their ideas as to what a good tax system is. c. If the proponents of Federal aid can figure need and arbitrarily count rural children as 1.4 children, more or less, they can get any result they choose. d. John J. Tigert, former United States Commissioner of Education, says that either you get Federal control, or, in the absence of control you get misappropria­tion and waste of money. e. Merwin K. Hart, President of the New York State Economic Council, says Federal aid will greatly increase the number of Federal bureaucrats jn Wash­ington, and we now have more than we need. f. Senator Robert A. Taft says we should not undertake another tremendous administrative task until we have digested what we have already bitten off. C. The proponents of Federal aid protest that it will not bring Federal control, but from their various pronouncements it is easy to see that they desire Federal control. 1. Dr. Floyd W. Reeves, Chairman of the Advisory Com­mittee on Education, says, "As we got into this matter, it became rather clear to us that there would probably be some money wasted if it were poured into some of these very small school districts that should not exist at all, where there should be a reorganization, and that the Federal Government might have to do either one of two things-either compel the States to reorganize in order that the money would not be wasted, or provide some means of encouraging them to reorganize." In other words, Dr. Reeves wants to reorganize our system, and Federal aid will permit him to do it. Our district system will go by the board. 2. Dr. George F. Zook, President of the American Council on Education, says that he disapproves of "the numerous changes which have been made from time to time in the personnel of State Departments of Education when there is a political turnover. That kind of thing has been going on for many, many years, but is no better now than it was in the earlier years. It seems very clear that unless we can ha~e a consistent group of men and women selected on a merit basis in the State Departments of Education, it would be impossible to see that these funds were expended properly." In other words, Federal money will enable them to interfere with State Departments of Education. 3. Mrs. Margaret Worral, National Legislative Chairman of the Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic, says, "If the Office of Education has some good ideas about education, and presents these ideas to the States, I feel confident that the States rather rapidly will accept the ideas if the States are in a financial position to do so." That is, if Federal bureaucrats can bribe greedy State officials to do as Washington orders. II. The plan for Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity is impractical. A. The cost of the program would be prohibitive. 1. Lewis Douglas, former Director of the Federal Budget, said, "If additional obligations are contracted, then addi­tional taxes must be imposed." 2. Senator David I. Walsh says: "Where is this new money to come from? It will come in the first instance from new loans floated by the Treasury to be met in years to come, sometime, somehow, by taxation.... It comes in the end out of the pockets of all our citizens in taxes." 3. Dr. Gould Wickey says that Federal aid will increase the national indebtedness, which is already staggering. 4. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio says: "The reason given for Federal entrance into the educational field is that the States are unable to provide the money required for what educational authorities think is desirable and cannot devise a tax system to do so. But what evidence have we that the Federal Government can devise any tax system which will raise $9,000,000,000 a year and enough more to give aid to education?" The authors of proposals for Federal aid to education, he says, "are blithely pro­posing to pay these subsidies out of increased deficits." 5. Senator Taft said in 1939, "The prospective deficit for the current fiscal year is very close to $4,000,000,000." And this was before the tremendous sums were voted for the defense program. The University of Texas Publication 6. With unemployment and relief still inadequately cared for and with the tremendous cost of defense, it would not be good fiscal policy to undertake a new and costly program. 7. Many people, even those who favor Federal aid, feel that it will cost too much. Henry I. Harriman, Vice-Chairman of the American Youth Commission, says: "The Federal Government necessarily spends money for many purposes. Not one of them is of more importance than the estab­lishment of a basic minimum of educational opportunity in every corner of the United States. I say this with profound regret because in general I should like to see Federal expenditures curtailed rather than expanded." 8. Merwin K. Hart, President of the New York State Eco­nomic Council, says, "I do not hesitate to predict, if this bill goes through, that within a few years we may be spending on education not $300,000,000 a year of Federal money but $3,000,000,000 a year." 9. Cathrine Curtis of the Mothers National Executive Com­mittee says: "What does $300,000,000 represent in rela­tion to present taxes on property? ... This amount is equal to 7.3 per cent of the gross revenues of all the States for the year 1937.... It further represents 20 per cent of the total Federal revenues produced from general property taxes in the year 1936 and is equal to 127 per cent of the total levies of general and selective property taxes by all 48 States in 1937.... It is equal to 15 per cent of the total amount spent by all 48 States in 1936 for all public and elementary education." B. It will be practically impossible to devise a workable system of apportionment for equalizing educational opportunity. 1. Dr. S. B. McAlister of North Texas State Teachers College says: "In the first place, it will be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory basis of need; and once this base is determined, it will be in a constant state of flux, due to the migrations of people and the various economic developments within the different States. In the second place, there will be certain practical difficulties arising in the taking and checking of census rolls. This will be especially true in those areas where there is an irregular change of population, and where there are large groups of foreigners as in some of our metropolitan areas, and in such territory as Southwest Texas. where there is a large mobile mass of Mexican population." 2. Innumerable complex factors have a bearing upon educa­tional need. a. The States vary greatly in the density of population. In one single city block there are often more people than in some of our western counties. Density of population affects directly.the cost of education, since small classes cost as much as large ones. b. There are great variations in the number of high­school students. Any system of determining a par­ticular State's educational need would have to take account of this problem. c. Transportation costs are much greater in some places than others. We need school busses in Texas but they are not needed in New York City. d. There is a great difference in the cost of living in Chicago and in a small Texas town. Salaries and wages amount to about 80 per cent of school costs, and thus this would make a difference. A salary of $75 a month in a Texas town would equal $150 in New York. 3. Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts says: "The Federal Commissioner of Education is directed to take into account such things as the wealth and total income of the respective States, total net incomes over $5,000 and under $25,000, and the total incomes above the latter figure; total motor-vehicle registration, total value added by manufacturing, total farm cash income, total postal receipts, and total retail trade. "The immense amount of statistical data comprehended in these calculations is apparent and there is no assur­ance whatever that the resulting 'index' will justly and accurately measure the comparative 'financial ability' 0£ the States nor insure equitable apportionment." 4. The final result will be that an arbitrary formula will be established and its operation entrusted to Federal bureaucrats. C. It is not practical to expect Senators and Congressmen from the more fortunate States to support Federal aid, since it would penalize their own people. 1. Dr. McAlister says that opportunities can be equalized only if the masses of the people in wealthy States do not bring pressure on their representatives in Wash­ington. .2. It is significant that legislation designed to equalize edu­cational opportunity always goes further in the Senate, where the States are equal, than in the House of Repre­sentatives where the richer and more populous States have the advantage. In the House of Representatives, The University of Texas Publication the combined vote of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Loui­siana, Mississippi, and Utah is 34, while the combined vote of Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is 134. In the Senate, where Arkansas and New York are equal, such legislation can find support. But in the House, where Arkansas has 7 and New York 45, it is impractical to expect support for equalization. 3. All such legislation as this stirs up intersectional ani­mosity. We fought one civil war over such quarrels. What we need now is unity. D. Each proposal for Federal aid to equalize educational oppor­tunity becomes a bandwagon for every educational interest group. 1. Adult education, library, vocational education, kinder­garten, nursery school and other such interests jump on the bandwagon and swell the cost. 2. And even with this disadvantage, Dr. Howard Dawson, Senator Lister Hill of Alabama and others agreed that Senate Bill 1313. was the very best bill that could be devised. III. The need for Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity has been greatly exaggerated. A. Even the alleged inequalities in education are overemphasized. 1. President John J. Tigert of the University of Florida says, "Every State in the Union has adequate resources to provide a satisfactory system of schools." 2. Guy E. Snavely, Executive Director of the Association of American Colleges, says: "I have been in Alabama as a college president for the past seventeen years, and secretary of the Association of Southern Colleges for eleven years.... I think they compare well with the schools in the North. . . . Of course, reference to statistics may seem to cause question of my judgment. I admit I am thinking in my comparison of the equipment facili­ties offered colleges maintained primarily for white people. These statistics showing the lower ranking of the Southern States in respect to educational matters are col­ored by the different opportunities afforded the Negroes. I hasten to add that within recent years this inequality in the South is being gradually and even rapidly over­come. . . . I think we have well-trained faculties in the South as well as in the North.... It is my sincere belief that we are not facing any real emergency with regard to buildings, equipment, or trained staffs of teacher-training institutions. In fact, I believe it would be just as valid to propose Federal grants for training Equalization of Educational Opportunity of doctors, lawyers, engineers, journalists, dentists, phar­macists, and even preachers, as well as for teachers." 3. If we could take the Negroes out of the South's statistical average, the South would not be nearly so low. The thing to do, then, is to help the Negro, and the white school average will automatically rise sufficiently. B. The recent developments which are used as arguments for Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity should be handled in other ways. 1. Defense population maladjustments have been cured by direct action. Congress in the summer of 1941 passed an appropriation of $150,000,000 to take care of this problem, and thus the effort of the Federal-aid-to­education people to tie this in with their program failed. 2. Inequalities in Negro education could be cured by forth­right aid to Negro schools. This would be more just anyway, because if Congress should give grants to Texas, the Negroes would not be given a full share, what with white people on the State, county and district school boards to figure them out of it. That is what is done now, and we cannot expect the leopard to change its spots. 3. The effort of the affirmative to drum up an emergency leads them to insist that the children of migratory farm workers are a good argument for their plan. These children do need educational advantages, but this problem likewise should be solved by direct action. They, like the Negroes, would be short-changed, because their parents are not well-to-do and influential. 4. It is sometimes argued nowadays that we should have Federal aid in order to reduce crime. Persons who do not got to school because of poverty at home and who later become criminals are the victims of a poor social system and not a poor educational system. C. There are many answers to the arguments about the unequal way in which our American economic system works. 1. If there is regional or sectional inequality in the United States, we ought to get at the base of it and correct the causes instead of applying superficial remedies. If the causes of our trouble are railroad rates, patents, monopo­lies, Civil War pensions, New York ownership of natural resources, and absentee-landlordism, then let's get at the causes and not tinker with the results. If a man has smallpox, we don't start squeezing his pimples; we try to get at the cause of the disease. We should do the same here. The University of Texas Publication 2. If the corporations take off our natural resources, why don't we tax them sufficiently? They say, "Yes, but Texas just can't tax them." Well, Congress cannot tax them either; this proposed program is going to be financed on borrowed money. 3. It is true that most corporations are owned in the East, but stocks in them are increasingly owned in other sections. 4. The standard of living in New York and Texas is different. Food, rent, fuel, medical care, and other expenses are much higher in the North. 5. Mr. Merwin K. Hart says: "Every man who hails from New York is supposed to hail from a rich State...• This Congress has too long taken it for granted that the State of New York . . . is rich. . . . I want to say that I believe New York State is far poorer than the great mass of the people of the United States think it is. D. We are busy with defense and we cannot afford to think of other things. Education can wait. It is not as if we had no schools at all. As it is, we have the best educational system in the world. We must not now divide our energies. E. Adversity is good. The overcoming of obstacles builds char­acter. Abraham Lincoln came up through a poor school system, or without any school at all. F. This legislation is for teachers and not school children. If teachers want more money, they should get in some other business, and not try to use needy children as a stepping­stone to more pay. G. Maybe we should improve what education we have instead of trying to expand. 1. Many people think our schools do not teach children well. 2. W. Carson Ryan, in discussing why President Roosevelt has never come out wholeheartedly for Federal aid to education, says, "I should like to suggest, as a part of ·the explanation, this: That the President, like many of the rest of us, is deeply interested in education, but wants to be sure that it's the right kind of education." IV. Numerous disadvantages would result from a program of Federal aid to equalize education. A. It would be unfair for the Government to set up such a system. 1. It is unfair to penalize one section of the country for another. a. Senator Walsh says: "Many of our large cities today are in desperate financial circumstances. Why punish them because of their generous financial sacrifices in the past by demanding aid from them for those com­munities which may have made little or no effort in the past?" b. The system is designed to make those who are paying most for education pay still more to raise the lowest. c. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio complains, "In effect the bill [S. 1305] is for the relief of the Southern States." d. The South would be much better off after full equal­izing because they would get the full amount for each Negro child and 1.4 for each rural Negro child, and then go ahead and spend most of it on the white children. 2. We have no convincing proof that the so-called less fortu­nate States have expended full effort to help themselves. a. If we let corporations from other States take all the profit from our natural resources in Texas, it is our own fault. b. We have not equalized opportunities within our own borders; those school districts that have oil wells within them are much better off than the others. If we cannot equalize within Texas, how can we expect the Federal Government to do it? c. Those States, such as Texas, which have an inefficient and disorganized tax system would be rewarded for their poor management if the equalization program were adopted. 3. The South has not been fair in giving the Negroes their full share, and it would not be fair to ask other sections to pay the cost of our segregated schools. a. Dr. Doxey A. Wilkerson of Howard University (Negro) says: "Experience has shown ... that merely to give Federal funds to States with segregated school systems is not sufficient to further progress toward equality of educational opportunity. On the contrary, it appears with certain existing Federal subsidies that, unless prevented by law, the more money these States with segregated systems of schools receive, the less money, proportionately, do those States spend on Negro schools." b. It is not fair to expect other sections to foot the bill for our racial prejudice. B. Many people believe that centralization of authority in educa­tion will lead toward dictatorship. 1. The adoption of the proposed program is abandoning the American way. Senator Taft says, "This is a departure from the policy followed since 1789." 2. Major General Amos A. Fries says the proposed system "has all of the elements of control and operation of a totalitarian school system such as they have in the totali­tarian countries, just as Italy has, as Germany has, and Japan, Russia and the other countries have." 3. Merwin K. Hart says the plan "would tend by just so much to get us deeper into the morass of collectivism." 4. Senator Walsh says that "the most potent weapon of dic­tators and revolutionists is the control of the schools and the education of the youth." 5. Senator Taft says, "In no way more than through the schools have the totalitarian states of Europe spread the doctrines of communism and fascism." C. Federal aid proposals stir up unnecessary strife between Catholics and Protestants. 1. Senator Taft says that there are 2,000,000 parochial school children in the country who are figured in the averages but left out of the aid. 2. Senator Walsh says we should continue giving aid to individual youths through the N.Y.A. and C.C.C. rather than to school systems, since the latter policy leaves out Catholics and the former does not. 3. Walter R. Reed, a high official in the Scottish Rite Masons, says that Catholic schools are devoted to church uses and should not get any public school money. 4. Rev. Thomas E. Little of the American Protestant Defense League says, "We would oppose any legislation . . . ap­propriating funds for the aid of private or parochial schools." EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS DEBATING THE "FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION" QUESTION By Horton Talley, Ph.D., Debate Coach, Texas State College for Women I. DEBATING IN GENERAL A. DEBATING IN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES AND COURTS OF LAW The purpose of debating as it takes place in the legislative halls of Texas or in the United States Congress is, of course, to find the truth of the matter under discussion. This purpose tends to eliminate elements of delivery and strategy from the consideration of legis­lators, jury, or judge in the formulation of their decision. When the fate of enterprises of the citizenship of the State or Nation, or the property or life of a man are at stake, the facts or the evidence, and logical inferences from them are the only sensible considerations. It is obvious that this ideal is not completely realized. The skill of lawyers or legislators in delivery and strategy are a factor in the outcome in both legislature and court, but they are and should be minimized as much as human nature permits in the decision of either body. B. CONTEST DEBATING In an intersc}lolastic debate a different element enters. The contest debate, as its name implies, is frankly a contest in debating skills. It is closely related to the "real life'' debating situations mentioned above, but with the contest element added because no factor of con­sequence in the lives of states or of men hangs on the decision of the judge. The value lies in the enterprise itself-in the training which results from taking part in debating. This situation is one which the contest debater often forgets. He becomes so engrossed in his arguments that for the time being he is the legislator or the lawyer, arguing for the truth as he sees it. Any­one who has taken part in debate will recognize the truth of that statement. The judge is remembering, however, that it is a contest of debating skills in which the presentation of sound evidence is an important, though not the only factor. Consequently it is often true that at the end of the debate the losing debaters find themselves at great variance with the decision of the judge, their own decision not only being prejudiced, but arrived at from a different viewpoint. A second factor which many debaters fail to consider when thinking of The University of Texas Publication the decision is the fact that every argument they present is clearer to them than to anyone in the audience, each of whom is hearing the argument for the first time, while to the debater it is "old stuff." Thus, debaters who always insist that they were "robbed," that the judge is a crook, that "we answered every argument they put up and they never did answer our federal control argument," are simply falling into a perfectly natural error created out of his very concentration on the thing he should concentrate on during the debate-the question itself. Matters of debate technique should have become so habitual that he does not need to give them much thought during the debate. And yet, failing to remember when the decision comes in that the judge is considering things which he has not in the heat of the debate been thinking about robs many debaters of much of the educational value of debating. Coaches can and do help the debater to see this, although cases have been heard of where coaches unconsciously foster this destructive attitude on the part of their debaters by agreeing with them that they. never lose a debate, although they may lose some decisions. II. IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF GOOD DEBATE TECHNIQUE AS THEY APPLY TO THE "FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION" QUESTION A. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION 1. The Definition of the Terms Probably four terms of the question need defining. "Annual grants," "adopt the policy," and "public elementary and secondary education'' are not difficult to agree upon. The intent of the framers of the question is perfectly clear in the use of these term~. Nevertheless definitions accepted by authorities in the field in which the question lies (education and government) should be briefly given in order to make the stand of the affirmative perfectly clear at the outset. Even more important is the definition of "equalizing educational oppor­tunity." This is a term on which the experts must be consulted with great care. Strictly interpreted by the negative as demanding that all children in every state should have exactly the same opportunity the term would make the question undebatable at the outset and result only in a quibble over the terms. Authorities on the question are agreed, however, that the principle of the question is satisfied if the financial burden of maintaining a satisfactory minimum program is distributed according to tax-paying ability without regard to state lines. Some argument might ensue over what constitutes a satis­factory minimum program, but the important thing is the principle involved, for it is entirely possible that the definition of such a minimum would change with general progress or for many other reasons, which would make extended debate over the exact amount of money to be spent, or the exact minimum standards to be set up, time wasted in quibbling. A reasonable interpretation by both sides is usually favored by both judges and audience, who want to hear the questi01L proposed for discussion discussed, not a quibble over the exact meaning of the terms. This does not mean, however, that it is unwise to challenge an unreasonable interpretation of the question offered by either side. After all that would then be the reasonable thing, expected by judges and audience alike. 2. Admitted and Waived Matter It is to be remembered that questions of whether the affirmative proposal can be adopted constitutionally as the Constitution now stands are waived. We are debating whether such a policy should be adopted, not whether it can now legally be adopted. Presumably such changes as would be necessary to make a wise policy consti­tutional would be adopted as a matter of course. Another important question in the minds of many people is also waived as far as the debate is concerned. We are not debating whether the affirmative proposal will be adopted, but whether it should be adopted. Any argument showing that the plan will not be adopted is irrelevant. Of course these two questions are also waived in the case of any alternative negative proposals. There again the question is what should be adopted, not what can be legally adopted or tuill be adopted. 3. The lrnportant Issues There are about seven important issues in a debate on the federal aid to education question. Grouped under the stock issues which must be discussed in every debate, they are: Is there a need for a change from the present situation? Grouped under this would be questions regarding the nature of the present situation. Is educational opportunity unequal at the present time? Is educational opportunity inadequate in some sections at the present time? Taking up the first sub-question or issue, I think it is quite obvious that there is a difference in the facts regarding different sections in the amounts spent for education per pupil, in buildings, in teachers' salaries, in all the tangible measures of the educational. system. It is a little more difficult to prove that educational opportunity is really inadequate. Probably it is, but fortunately for the negative, it is difficult to prove conclusively. The affirmative should make every effort to go below these superficial measures of education-money spent, buildings, salaries, etc.-to the real question, which is the quality of the product turned out. Figures on children without any chance to go to school, shortened school terms because of lack of funds, and comparisons of the quality of work done in the schools of the various sections are the more important types of data to actually prove that there is unequal educational opportunity. Many of these same types of figures and facts can also be used to show that educational opportunity is also inadequate. This is the real heart of the question. It might be true that educational oppor­tunity was greater in one section than in another, yet might be up to a rather adequate standard in both sections. On this question of need the negative will probably want to hold the affirmative pretty strictly to their burden of proof. This is true because the bulk of the figures on educational opportunity tend to show that there is a need. Of course the negative may try to belittle the need, not attempting to completely deny it, but holding that it is not great enough to warrant such a "drastic change." Figures on the relative cost of living in the two main sections (North and South) between which the main comparisons are drawn, the fact that the teacher's training costs so much more in the better paid section, and comparisons between salaries paid in the two sections to teachers and to other types of workers will help to show that the comparisons of salary scales are not so unfavorable to the South as they appear, are available. The need for more expensive construction in the North, together with the higher building costs because of higher wage scales in the North, the fact that gymnasiums and swimming pools indoors are more necessary in the North-all help to belittle the differences in expenditure for buildings in North and South. With regard to figures showing numbers of children having little or no schooling at all, the negative will have to rely upon holding the affirmative to their burden of proof, suggesting that economic conditions in the South, the need of parents for the help of their children in the traditionally hand-tilled crops of the South may account for much of the lack of opportunity to go to school. Make the affirma­tive prove that the children who do not go to school are actually without opportunity because of lack of school facilities and not because of other factors which the affirmative plan would not remedy. The above issues deal only with the need for a change from the present situation. A third sub-issue makes it more specifically a need for · Federal grants if the affirmative can prove it-that the states cannot solve the problems involved because they lack the necessary financial resources to do so. Here again the bulk of the evidence available favors the affirmative. Figures compiled on the basis of an ideal tax system applied to the resources of the various states show quite a striking disparity in the ability to pay taxes for any use, and that in some instances the application of the ideal tax system to some of the Southern States would not produce enough money to finance an adequate minimum educational program if spent entirely on education, leaving nothing for the other necessary services of the state governments. On this issue the negative, with the bulk of evidence against them, must again resort to holding the affirmative strictly to account on their burden of proof, pointing out at the same time the tremendous wastes of present outmoded practices in both taxation and education, which if eliminated would reduce the gap between educational needs and available tax funds very encouragingly, further minimizing the need for Federal aid. Another issue which may not actually be presented in the debat.e, but which is implied in the affirmative proposal is that since the stat.es cannot solve the problem, the Federal Government must. If they desire to do so the negative might bring this assumption into the open and argue that it is dangerous logic to say that any prob­lem the states cannot solve should be taken over by the Federal Government. They might point to other examples of this tendency­social security, aid to agriculture, the tariff, subsidization of railroads and airplane transportation-and argue that if we are to adopt this principle as a policy that there is no stopping point. Since the basic problem presented by the affirmative is that of the economic poverty of the Southern States, wouldn't it be better, and in line with the trend and consistent with the affirmative principle, to have the Federal Government solve the problem of the lack of economic resources in the Southern Stat.es, which would make specific grants for education or other purposes unnecessary? Surely it is important that people should be well clothed, well fed, well housed and yet this a prob­lem the stat.es cannot solve. Of course the negative is here simply reducing the argument of the affirmative to an absurdity by carrying it to its logical conclusion-the Federal Government taking over all the problems which the states cannot solve, many of which are more basic than the educational problem, since they really are the causes which result in the educational problem. The negative will be chal­lenging the affirmative to justify the principle of government for which they are standing in a particular application. The affirmative's position will be that the immediate question is one of helping educa­tion out of its rut rather than the broader question posed by the negative, but the negative can drive the affirmative to a discussion of the principles involved, by this approach, on which the negative will be stronger than in the discussion of the causes for action in the need as discussed previously. The next issue is the nature of the plan under which the affirmative proposal would be carried out. Here the affirmative may be quite specific, or may limit its discussion to the broad principles of administration. Two important phases of this part of the discussion will be the nature of the formula which will decide which states are to receive grants and on what basis, and the nature of the adminis­trative set-up which will be the guiding agency in this work. Under the second it.em, an important point in the discussion will be the degree and kind of control which the administrative body will have over the :funds appropriated by Congress. O:f course to deny that the Federal Government will have any control o:f the institutions its :funds are designed to aid will cause. the affirmative more trouble than it will give them help. Some affirmatives are led into trouble by holding that the Federal Government will control only the money which it expends. It seems obvious that the Federal Government will have to control, by the setting up of certain minimum standards of efficiency and prevention of waste, all the money provided by the state as well as its own money. In the same way it provided certain minimum standards before it matched funds with the states for social security payments to the aged, etc. The advantages to be gained under the plan will match closely the problems presented in the need. The more the negative can minimize the need, the smaller they can claim the advantages will be. In many cases on both sides the advantages or disadvantages will largely go by implication, but they should probably be specifically mentioned, possibly at the close o:f the case. On the negative side one of the most important issues will be the evils which the plan will introduce. There may be many. Adding to the financial burden on the Federal Government at a time when the treasury is already overburdened is one which certainly should not be overlooked. Driving the wedge which already divides the sections of the United States deeper by forcing one section to tax itself for the benefit of the other is a real possibility. Putting the schools into national politics is a possible evil. Probably the most discussed and most feared is the threat of too much Federal control over the schools, the wrong kind of Federal control. Of course Senate Bill 1305 specifically states that the control of subject matter, choice of teach­ers, etc., shall reside in the hands in which it now rests. There have been cases, however, of Federal grants for specific types of education which were entirely without strings, only to find that the strings were added in amendments to the bill added subsequently, after the bill had been in operation for a short time. The whole history of Federal grants to education should be studied thoroughly to see what the practice has been. How much Federal control has there been and in what areas. This is a fruitful area for challenges back and forth. After proving that in some past cases the Federal Govern­ment has tended to broaden its powers of control over the schools in the phases it was subsidizing, the negative might challenge the affirmative to show any single exceptions to this general rule, that control tends to grow in cases of this kind. On the other hand the affirmative might ask the negative to show that the Federal Govern­ment has abused control it has taken over or that the situation was not improved under the Federal control existing. In each ca~e the general situation should be made clear by specific cases being cited before such a challenge is issued. One's own burden of proof should be met before issuing a challenge which broadens the other's burden. Equalization of Educational Opportunity Along with the contention that Federal control will exist and bring evils in its wake, the negative will also insist that the corresponding killing out of local control and local initiative is a great evil. On the affirmative the arguments will be that the cost is insignifi­cant in comparison either to the benefits or to the sums being spent in preparation for defense; that the wealthier states are wealthier because they derive much income from the states in need of aid by means of selling manufactured articles, insurance, etc., because the northern and eastern states "got in on the ground fioor" in the eco­nomic and industrial development of this country; that Federal con~ trol of the type to be instituted will be better than the local political control, hiring of teachers on pull, etc.; and that local initiative must be somewhat lacking in many areas or the schools would not be in such conditions as they are. 4. Differences in the Possibilities on the Negative on This and Other Questions On every question the affirmative is tied down to its burden of proof, which gives it little leeway in its basic position. The negative usually has four choices of position: (1) Defending the status quo. (2) Admitting some evils but holding that they are not inherent and can be remedied under the present situation. (3) Arguing that the disadvantages and evils outweigh the benefits, even though the situa­tion is somewhat bad. (4) Admitting the need for a change, but arguing for another plan of remedying the need-a negative alterna­tive plan. In the present question, the first three still hold, the last is more or less out. In the sales tax or natural resources tax ques­tions, the need could safely be admitted, then an argument for some other tax than the one offered by the affirmative could be advanced, as an alternative plan. In the present question there are only three places where the money can come from-the local units of govern­ment, the states, or .the Federal Government. At the present time the states and the local units are financing education in some com­bination or other, not uniform in all the states. The negative may argue for the revision and perfection of either or both of these types of financing-remedying the evils under the basic principles of the present plan-but there is no clean-cut alternative plan for the nega­tive to propose. Ordinarily as a matter of debate strategy one does not admit the need unless there is another plan, an alternative plan, which can be offered. In this question the need is strong enough to make it desirable to admit it and offer an alternate plan in order to save the negative the difficulty of arguing against a very strong need argument, but there is no alternate plan available. This puts the negative in the position of being unable to admit the need without putting themselves into a very weak position from the standpoint of strategy. They must take one of the first three positions. Only the third one involves no necessity of denying or minimizing the need The University of Texas Publication and this position (arguing that the disadvantages and evils outweigh the benefits) is putting all of the negative's eggs in one basket which may or may not hold them. Possibly a combination of (2) and (3), arguing that the situation is not so bad, can be improved under present principles of administration, and that the affirmative plan involves disadvantages and evils too great to be risked is as satis­factory a negative position from the logical point of view as the question affords. Other positions might be used as variations in order to keep the affirmative guessing a little, but there is little doubt that the affirmative is logically the stronger side. That is why holding the affirmative strictly to their burden of proof has been stressed so much in this discussion. Here, as in most questions, the strongest negative position is that the affirmative has only thirty-one minutes to make out a case. The necessity of putting extra work on the negative side of the case is shown by the fact that in the model debate tournament of high-school teams held last summer at the T. S. C. W Speech Insti­tute the decisions were almost two to one in favor of the affirmative, twenty-six to fourteen to be exact. I am sure this ratio will not hold during the Interscholastic League competition, for the negative side was beginning to develop better toward the close of the tournament, but the negative will have to be given extra work to make it as strong as the affirmative will be in the early season debates. B. ORGANIZATION OF THE CASE One of the hallmarks of a good debater for which every judge is watching is careful organization. This demands, first of all a case which is well developed-not too many main points, but all about equally important, all necessary to the case, carefully supported by coordinate and subordinate sub-points numbered in such a way to show their relationship to each other and to the point which they support clearly. In order to make the organization clearly apparent to judge and audience it is well to follow the discussion of each main point and its supporting points by a summary of the main point before introducing the next main point. After discussing the second main point, summarize both first and second main points before intro­ducing the third. Use these internal summaries which relate each main point to the question for debate and to the other main points so that no listener ever has to ask himself the question, "What has this to do with whether we should have Federal aid to education?" Of course at the close of each speech a final summary of the conten­ tentions of the speaker should be offered. The second speaker of each team begins by summarizing his colleague's argument, refuting the arguments which have been offered ·by the intervening opponent against it as part of the summary, then proceeding with his own speech, maintaining the continuity by means, again, of internal and final summaries. C. EVIDENCE, INFORMATION, AND SUPPORT OF ARGUMENTS One of the phases of the debate which is emphasized by every judge in his decision is the question of who offers the most and the soundest evidence and reasoning in support of a clearly analyzed case. After assembling the evidence on any point, it is wise to ask one's self if the assembled evidence and reasoning make the point as strong as it can be made. Some points can be completely proved, but not all. If all points could be completely proved the question would not be a debatable one. The well prepared debater is informed on every point as completely as library facilities make possible, even to being pre­pared to evaluate various items of evidence in comparison with other items, and to compare the soundness of authorities on the question in terms of their opportunity to know the facts, their bias for or against the proposition, and the final test, their acceptability to audience and judge. D. REBUTTALS A good rebuttal is not an accident, but a carefully worked out speech, even though it is worked out in its final form during the debate on the basis of thorough advance preparation which makes this possible. A good rebuttal consists of answers to main issues only, usually in the order in which they have been presented by the opposition. Sub-points and evidence are dealt with in rebuttal only as a means of disproving the main issues they support. It does not help in the least to show that a certain item of evidence offered by your opponent is false, misleading, or only part of the picture unless you follow it up to show that this breaks down the proof offered in support of the contention that the present situation is in need of a change, or whatever the issue is. In rebuttal it is not necessary to deny everything your opponent has said. There are three ways of refuting an argument: (1) To deny the facts on which it is based. (2) To show that the wrong interpretation has been placed on those facts. It may be true that rural schools in the northern states are in bad shape, but that may not prove that Federal aid should be given those states. It may mean that the system of distribution of the funds within the states is needed. (3) One may present additional evidence which changes the picture, which offsets the argument. It is true that Federal aid would cost a great deal of money. When the affirmative answers that charge it is not necessary to deny it, but to add to it the fact that great benefits would accrue because of the expenditure of the money, these benefits outweighing the cost. The complete rebuttal of any point should consist of five steps: (1) A statement of your opponent's point which you propose to refute. (2) A brief analysis of its importance in the debate. This is put in The University of Texas Publication to show the audience and judges that in destroying this argument you are contributing greatly to the strength of your own case. It also prevents the one who is giving the rebuttal from wasting time on unimportant arguments. (3) Your own position on the issue. (4) Proof of the truth of your own position by means of evidence, authority, and reasoning. It is in the development of this point in the refutation of your opponent's argument, that you deny his facts, deny the inference, or offset the argument by showing something of equal or greater importance on the other side as suggested in the paragraph above. (5) Summarize the rebuttal point. The complete rebuttal speech consists of one, two, or three rebuttal units as outlined under the five points or steps, each answering one major issue of your opponent's case or resupporting your own followed by a final summary of both or all three issues with which you have dealt. Of course, if you deal with only one major issue, the summary of the rebuttal point becomes the final summary of the rebuttal. Another important item with regard to rebuttal technique is the use of new or additional support for your points. A good rebuttal is never simply a rehash of the arguments and their support which came in the constructive case. Each time a point is touched in the debate the argument ought to go a little deeper than the time before. The good debater will have sufficient information and evidence, will have thought his way through the argument with sufficient clarity to make this possible. · One final word about rebuttal. Let each debater get clearly in mind the fact that there is a very real distinction between saying something about an argument and answering it. Much of the trouble between judges and debaters lies in the fact that many debaters believe that if they have mentioned an argument in rebuttal, they have answered it. They have difficulty getting judges to agree with them. E. DEBATE ETHICS AND SPORTSMANSHIP In the long run good debate strategy and debate ethics are the same thing. Using the soundest evidence you can find, not merely the most favorable to your side is a matter of good judgment as well as fairness. It does you little good and may do your case actual harm to use materials which are so biased, or which present such extreme viewpoints, that all your opponent has to do is simply point out that reliable factual sources or sound authorities disagree with the evidence you have presented. And of course the use of sources which are actually questionable or making statements for which you have no foundation in fact when hard pressed in rebuttal or rejoinder is inviting disaster of the worst sort. Many judges do and many more should challenge statements which arouse their suspicions and ask to see evidence before the decision is given. The use of too fully prepared debate materials is being looked on with increasing disfavor by judges. Using compilations of selected materials, such as this handbook, to supplement inadequate library facilities is one thing, but the purchase and use of debate materials which include complete speeches on both sides, "canned" rebuttal mate­rials--in short any debate materials which attempt to do the debater's work for him, thus depriving him of the very valuable training in searching out materials, organizing his ideas, preparing them for public presentation-is something else. Use of the latter type of materials, easily spotted by judges, almost always prejudices a judge in favor of the other team, assuming them to be innocent of such practices. The importance of a sportsmanlike attitude toward opponents, courteous treatment of them and their ideas is not to be overestimated. Picking on your opponents, trying to make them appear dumb or juvenile, making fun of their arguments in any but the best humored manner; all these devices are best calculated to turn audience and judge against you. Clarence Darrow, the great trial lawyer, is re­ported in a recent magazine article to have "purposely appearea bewildered" in clashes with a city lawyer. "The spectacle of a fellow rustic being pushed around by a metropolitan slicker usually won the jury over." The same article says that for the lawyer "to bully even a recalcitrant witness ... may cause the jury's sympathies to swing to the underdog." The bullying tactics of a cocky young high-school debater has cost him many a decision. It may even be said that many a judge votes grudgingly if at all for such a debater, wanting to vote for his less able opponents simply because of the obnoxious attitude of his kind. The debater who treats his opponent with respect, who does not imply that "he is a dumb-bell who ought not to be allowed on the same platform with me," who is quiet and respectful while his opponent speaks, gives the judge a chance to give full weight t.o his arguments and does not create in that very human judge the desire to vote against him. Honesty, fairness, sin­cerity, and sound argument: these have won more debates than "too­slick" cases and a condescending, superior attitude on the part of the debater. DEBATING THE QUESTION OF EQUALIZING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES By S. Stanley Knapp, Debate Coach, North Dallas High School This year's Interscholastic League question is one of policy and, therefore, makes necessary the determining of a need, the establish­ment of the workability of the policy if adopted, a comparison of the benefits to be derived with the disadvantages which are sure to present themselves, and finally the showing that this policy is superior t.o any other policy which could be proposed in its place. Quite logically the first step in debating the equalization of edu­cational opportunity under the proposed proposition is the establish­ment of a need for such a change. The establishment of this step demands the answering of several questions such as: Has state and local support of education failed to adequately provide for the edu­cational needs of the American people? What has caused this failure of our present policy? Is the condition a temporary one caused by world conditions brought about by war-mongering or is the condition one that has been brought about by our changed national life and, therefore, a permanent one? Js education such a potent influence in our national life that we dare not let it lag and must, therefore, ask the Federal Government to step in and offer a financial assistance that its weak spots may be made strong? What influences have so integrated our national life·that we can no longer leave the education of our children to state and local support? To these and other similar questions must be found a satisfactory answer if the affirmative is to establish a need for abandoning our present method of giving edu­cational opportunity and the adoption of a new policy. Our second step, the establishment of the workability of the pro­posed policy will not be so easy. While we have examples of federal aid to ·institutions of higher learning to draw from, they have quali­ties distinctly different from such a support of elementary and secondary education. The influence of aid from the Federal Govern­ment on these lower educational levels will be quite different from that same influence upon those of higher levels. To draw upon examples of foreign governments will undoubtedly involve the debaters in a discussion of the merits of the two types of .government, ours and theirs, rather than a discussion of the present question. What then shall be the criteria of the workability of the proposed new policy? There is only one way in which this criteria can be set up and that is by a thorough study of all government aid which has been given to the states, in whatever field applied, and the results that have come from such assistance. The final two steps necessary in debating this year's question can be arrived at only after exhaustive study and critical analysis. I suggest the attending of tournaments, the indulgence in many debates, and the patiently waiting until the season advances before any team makes a final decision on these steps. DEBATING THE SUBJECT OF EQUALIZING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY By Otis L. Hilliard, Debate Coach, Denison High School FROM THE AFFIRMATIVE VIEWPOINT In arguing the question of "Equalizing Educational Opportunities by Means of Federal Aid," the affirmative should stress the fact that Equalization of Educational Opportunity such a scheme furnishes the only practicable means of bringing about the proper equalization of such opportunities. Stress the fact that unless such opportunities are equalized the school children of some states will have to continue to be handicapped by inferior edu­cational facilities. Deny the contention that the present deplorable situation in the public school systems of some of our states has been brought about primarily as a result of the depression. Insist that the condition of unequal opportunities has existed for a long period of time, in good times as well as bad, but that the depression simply aided in bringing the situation more forcibly to our attention. Empha­size the fact that you are urging the necessity of such a scheme primarily because of the need of equalizing educational opportuni­ties; that the present urgent need is only a secondary consideration in the final analysis; that, therefore, even if the negative show that the present urgent situation might be alleviated by temporary means, and even if you should admit such a contention, without Federal aid, as provided in this scheme, educational opportunities will continue to be grossly unequal. Challenge the opposition to deny that educa­tional opportunities do not greatly vary in the different states and then challenge them to show any other practicable means of equalizing such opportunities. Stress the fact that the immense wealth of many of the states is due to the fact that large corporations and large business interests are located in their boundaries. And then point out that such busi­ness organizations draw their wealth from the states throughout the nation rather than alone from the State in which such interests are located and chartered. Then, point out that a part of the taxes paid by such concerns should redound to the benefit of the people, located in other states, who help, in the final analysis, to pay such taxes. When the opposition tell you that the granting of such aid would lead to Federal domination and Federal control of education, chal­lenge them to back up such an argument. Point out that the oppo­sition have no grounds for assuming such an outcome-that, in the past, when the government has aided other lines of business, no such results have come about. That this question simply states that "Educational Opportunities Should Be Equalized by Means of Annual Grants"-that nothing in the statement of the question even so much as intimates that the Federal Government is to assume any control or dictation over the educational systems of the states; that the states will be left free, under your plan, to spend such grants as they see fit; that when the Federal Government makes the grant, its responsibility ceases; that, if such requirements should be made, the state is certainly free to reject such a grant and, hence, would not have to submit to the alleged domination. The opposition may tell you that you do not know that your plan of redistribution which does not involve any degree of domination, will be the sort that is adopted. Make the reply that neither do the opposition know that The University of Texas Publication requirements will be made involving any degree of domination. And then state that you of the affirmative do know that if a plan were adopted involving any such control, that the states would certainly have the right to reject such a plan until Congress worked out a scheme of distribution satisfactory to the states. Stress all along the needs of the schools-the thousands of children that are being denied the opportunity of receiving an education-that many of the states are too poor to relieve this condition-and that, therefore, Federal aid which would bring about a fairer distribution of the tax money which wealth pays, is the only way out. FROM THE NEGATIVE VIEWPOINT In arguing that a policy of "Equalizing Educational Opportunity by Means of Federal Aid" should not be adopted, the negative should insist that the present shortage of funds on the part of the school systems of some of our states is due primarily to the effects of the lengthy depression through which we have passed. That the Federal Government has been alleviating the situation by means of temporary Federal aid; that the need for such aid is passing. And especially that, even if temporary Federal aid is needed, such a fact does not constitute any sound argument for the adoption of such a measure as a permanent policy. Stress the fact that temporary aid is one thing; that for the Federal Government to attempt to equalize educa­tional opportunities by means of such aid would be quite another thing. You of the negative oppose any such a scheme primarily because, in the final analysis, such a plan means that the states now paying proportionately more for educational facilities would have tO pay still more in order that the states now paying proportionately less would have better educational facilities and opportunities. Also, continually point out that the responsibility for poor educa­tional facilities in some of the states lies primarily on the states themselves for the reason that they have failed to properly equalize taxes on the wealth which they have, and for the reason that they have failed to properly consolidate and unify their own public systems. Then, ask the opposition if other states are to be forced through a system of Federal taxation and Federal distribution to pay for the maladjustments in some of the states. · Continually ask the opposition what authority over the states the Federal Government is to assume in making the proposed grants? They are forced to advocate a plan involving very little authority on the part of the Federal Government. When they do this, then show that the states are likely to waste a large per cent of the grants made them. Continually call upon the opposition to enlarge upon their plan of determining the need; to explain what conditions a State must meet before being eligible for Federal aid; to set up their plan of distribution; and to point out what part the Federal Government is to have in supervising the expenditure of the grants made. The more they explain, the more weaknesses you will be able to point out. When the plan is outlined, show that it would lead to a great extent to Federal domination and Federal control. That the states would to some extent have to yield some of their present sovereignty in the field of education to the Federal Government, and that the danger of a political bureaucracy being set up over the schools would be an ever present one. If possible, work in a plea throughout your argument for the preservation of local control, local initiative and freedom of enter­prise for our public school systems. FEDERAL AID AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS By C. Allen True, Professor of History and Director of Debate, Texas Christian University America-the arsenal of democracy! How often one hears this statement at the present time, but how often one fails to evaluate the true meaning behind these words. As one surveys the pages of history, he becomes more and more conscious of the fact that democracy is neither won nor preserved upon the field of battle; instead, the struggle for democracy must be carried on in the edu­cational institutions of the day. The contemporary critical period through which the world is passing brings this problem forcibly before the American people. Equal educational opportunities must be provided in order that the citizens of tomorrow may be able to accept thejr responsibilities in this new system now in the process of formation. However, there are many who hold that since the nature of the world to come is unknown, there is no need for plan­ning. Not knowing, one should even be more interested in the evolving of a system which shall provide not only capable leader­ship, but, more significantly, equal possibilities for all. Indubitably, one of the major tasks before all people today is to prepare a United States in which trained leadership, plus an educated following, will be able to guarantee the continuation of our democratic way of life. Only through education may one find the desired security. It is not enough to utter meaningless words, for it must be recognized that the preservation of democracy depends upon the people. Moreovel'", under the present educational organization all citizens are not possessed of an equal opportunity to develop their innate capacities. Furthermore, one must accept the established fact that local control of education is essential to the maintenance of individual liberty. But, when these local bodies cannot, or do not, provide that essential prerequisite of democratic freedom-equality of opportunity-then an imperative need results. The Problem of School Finance Depressions, lowered standards of living, unemployment, war, and myriad other forces have contributed to the pressing problem of school financing: In recent years changing economic conditions have resulted in greater disparities of income and decreased returns in taxes. Of course, the obligation to educate every citizen remains un­changed. Educational inequalities under a democratic order demand an analysis of basic issues which may be involved. Immediately two fundamentals become apparent, one the product of the other: first, the question is not who should do it, but rather who can do it; and ::::e'.!0nc, the consideratio!l is not how much aid shall be given, but what control shall be established in connection with that aid. Hence the question of federal subsidies. This problem is of great import in the Southern States, since the South has been labeled the "number one problem" of the nation. To understand fully the situation, and to be familiar with its several aspects it is necessary to cite a few statistics. For example, it was estimated in 1936, that some 22,000,000 children were attend­ing the elementary schools. These pupils were served by over 232,000 organized units, and the average was determined by reports from twenty-two states, together with the District of Columbia, that no less than $57.69 was spent for current expenses of each child of elementary school age in average daily attendance. A survey by states discloses a wide variation in amounts expended for this phase of public education: whereas Arkansas spent $18.76 per pupil, the amount for Nevada was $114.52. In this same year of 1936, nearly seven million pupils were enrolled in almost 26,000 public high schools, and for each of these secondary pupils nineteen states and the District of Columbia reported an allotment of $113.09. The inequality of these figures becomes more pronounced when one considers that only about seventy per cent of urban and thirty per cent of rural youth of high-school age were attending. This is hardly cause for wonder when one recalls that eighty-three per cent of the American people live below what is considered a salary suited to a decent standard of living. Clearly a disproportion exists in educational opportunities. Federal Aid Is Not New When Federal aid is offered as possible solution to this all impor­tant dilemma, certain individuals immediately state that historical precedent is lacking to support this proposal. More specifically, their chief objection is that it is a new and radical invasion of a field which is distinctly State and local in nature. It is the age-old cry of the conservative and reactionary forces, and is most assuredly not based upon a true analysis of the charge thus made. The support of education had its beginning in 1785 when the Confederation legis­lated for the National Domain. From that date the Federal Govern­ment continued its paternalistic practice. At times specific grants have been made for education; at times these grants have been di­rected by the states to their permanent school funds or for other school purposes. Some, or all of such grants as the Surplus Revenue Loan of 1837 and the Forest Reserve Fund of 1907 have been allotted to the common schools in a number of states. Truly, our Federal Government throughout its history has pioneered in this field and has supported its efforts with substantial money grants. The past fifty years have portrayed an intensification on the part of the national government in the realm of learning. The charge that his­torical precedent is lacking is undeniably false. But on the other hand, indictments may be lodged against the Federal Government in relationship to its conscious or unconscious attempt at regulation and control through its grants; and against the special grants which have been made in recent years to support particular phases of education. Beginning in 1917 with the Smith-Hughes Act, annual grants of federal aid for vocational training have been employed. This policy of subsidizing a specific phase of the public school program, not only initiated a new governmental policy, but more significantly intro­duced a process of imposing detailed conditions upon the acceptance and use of aid granted to public schools. Furthermore, this was the first time the central government made annual grants for educa­tion below the college level. In accepting these the State has been called upon to match Federal funds with an equal amount, and in turn has lost a portion of its control over this special branch of learning. It must be remembered, however, that this is only one type of Federal grant--0ne for a designated purpose. Other types include the general grant-in-aid which may be used as needed by the local unit or by the State departments; and sums for avowed federal education projects, which are neither coordinated with nor administered by the local authorities-the C.C.C. camps, W.P.A. nursery schools, and the W.P.A. adult classes. Morever, one must keep in mind that Federal grants, even with reservations, have been conferred in order to meet expressed needs, to provide opportunities, and to give training for life. The total provided for vocational edu­cation at secondary school level amounted to more than ten million d~llars in 1937. Likewise, legislation to provide greater assistance f6r elementary and secondary education of a general nature has been from time to time introduced in Congress, and has been tabled largely because of more pressing demands, such as national defense. In 1936, a proposal known as the Harrison-Fletcher Bill was presented in the national legislature, and was reintroduced in 1937 as the Harrison­Black-Fletcher Bill, which provided for a subsidy of one hundred million dollars to be used by the states to help equalize the tax burden and educational opportunities. It further provided for an annual increase of fifty million dollars until a final outlay of three hundred million dollars was reached. In like manner the recent House Bill 3517 asked for the equalizing of educational opportunity through the medium of federal grants-in-aid. The Expansion of National Powers Therefore, the assumption that the Federal Government has not been operating in the field of public education may be denied and were it not for the present national emergency Federal aid would doubtless be on the increase. However, cognizance must be taken of the fact that more and more control in this all-important field has been the policy of the government. This is rapidly becoming a menace! Even recognizing the existence of historical precedent those opposed to this aid raise the cry of unconstitutionality. It is well known that practically every modernization is greeted by this charge. While it is true that the Constitution does not guarantee a democratic system of education, it does guarantee a democratic form of govern­men~ which should incorporate the former. And, it must be remem­bered that neither does the Constitution provide for social security, and yet such Supreme Court decisions as Helvering versus Davis have extended the protective cloak of constitutionality to include social security; then why not the same protective cloak to offer educational security? One will, of necessity, be forced to reply--even though unconstitutional in the strictest sense of the word, the Fed­eral Government has extended such aid, further aid of some type is necessary and desirable, and judicial attitudes and court decisions have secured many equalities under the General Welfare clause. Furthermore, one may cite that there is no direct grant of power for the establishment of the educational plants at West Point and Annapolis, yet no one doubts their constitutionality. On the other hand, the definite task of the Federal Government is to govern and not to teach; and if schools are to be supported financially, then other institutions, such as certain churches, should be permitted the right to demand the same aid. Also, one realizes that Federal aid without control leads to waste, and the loss of funds through bad loans, unpaid notes, mismanagement, fraudulent bonds and embez­zlement, which renders it impractical, whereas Federal aid with con­trol is unconstitutional, since it carries with it an invasion of States' rights. This penetration of State sovereignty could easily take one of three forms: first, oppression, control, and regulation; second, cooperation; or third, conflict. If the ideal of American legislators and educators is the establishment of equality in the school system, then cooperation becomes necessary if the present national organizations are failing to meet this need, and if there are deficient funds for the establish­ ment of equal opportunities. It should be noted that the United States Office of Education is trying to furnish better coordinated programs. In 1939 more than twenty representatives of this Office were engaged in visiting State educational departments and were evaluating common elements, differences, and significant factors in the educational structure of this country. It must be concluded that such a national organization is best fitted to deal with problems of coordination, and yet, such work is rendered impracticai if funds are not available to provide for the equalizing of opportunities. Where Should the Money Come From The keynote of the entire problem then becomes-who is financially able to provide these opportunities now lacking? By constitutional amendment the Federal Government has invaded the field of State taxation, through legalizing a Federal income tax on corporations and individuals. As a result, State income through taxation has decreased while expenditures have steadily increased. Logically then, the national government by injuring the State must assume a moral responsibility to assist financially the educational program of that State, or it must abandon its own tax practices. But the problem would be only partially solved in either instance, because, as every­one realizes, the centralization of business through corporate control has consolidated the Federal collection of taxes in a few centers of capital and management; thus new states, as well as those given over to agrarian pursuits and cattle raising, would still be at a distinct disadvantage. The unequal primary distribution of wealth offers another argument, both economic and social, for Federal aid. When one fully appreciates the fact that incomes are centralized in sma11 geographical areas and that this income is received from areas which have no relation to political lines, either State or county, he comes to the realization that a secondary means of distribution must be employed, and the best type seems to be taxation. The most practical means of financing public services, such as education, is through taxation; but it must be based on the ability to pay-it must be both equitable and just. This can be accomplished only under a central political system. Under New Deal legislation of the past few years, the Federal Government has attempted to pro­vide uniform development throughout the nation and has sought to re-allocate wealth, an~ it becomes expedient that this same agency should seek to safeguard its greatest asset-an educated youth-the product of equalized opportunities. Particular states, as well as certain individuals, oppose such a system of Federal aid, and yet one finds that these states and individuals are not unduly burdened since they derive their incomes from the entire nation. In reality, there­fore, Federal aid seems a necessity for a more just and equitable distribution of the cost of essential services which are beneficial to every section of the nation. The University of Texas Publication When one speaks of the ability to support education he implies economic power, and a comparative yardstick gives evidence that this ability is lacking, at least so far as some states are concerned. The richest State in the Union is more than six times as able to sup­port its schools as is the poorest. Twelve of the wealthiest have over three times as much ability to support education as the twelve most poverty-stricken. In retrospect, however, it must be kept in mind that the poorer States generally have a lower standard of living and as a result education is not so costly. Granting, for the sake of argument, that equalization is possible within an individual State, and recognizing that the problem rests primarily with the local unit, the fundamental nature of government must be changed. Here one finds a strong argument against an attempt on the part of the Federal Government to establish equaliza­tion within an individual State: no State has established the fact that it cannot provide a good school system and equal opportunities for all. Moreover, an equitable proposal for the institution of annual grants of a general nature by the Federal Government has not been forthcoming. Some propose a per-head basis for each child or young person of school age; this is impractical from several viewpoints, particularly in that the needs of all states are not the same and thus waste and abuse would reward such a blanket grant. Also, demands would be forthcoming for other public services such as police, health, and unemployment. Others advocate a grant on the basis of population; this is impractical because some states actually need aid and others just want it. Too, this does not take into con­sideration real wealth, income, existing facilities, and established needs. Just at the present time there seems to be no real alarm over the probability of public education being controlled through Federal grants, for approximately ninety-seven per cent of public money employed in educational processes is derived from state, county, city, and district funds. In 1934 Federal aid amounted to 1.98 % of the total and i.n 1936 to 2.14 % . In the latter year the total revenue receipts for public elementary and secondary schools was in excess of $1,971,000,000.00-2.14 % of such a sum would hardly substantiate unitary control. Federal Aid, Bureaucracy, and Politics Those who oppose the enlargement of Federal aid to education point to the imminent danger of increased bureaucracy and its harmful effect on democracy. On can hardly indict them for this attitude, for as has been noted in recent years a practice such as this once initiated is difficult to eliminate. It is argued that bureaucracy would be costly, and at the same time would lead to uniformity, which would be undesirable. The first charge is certainly unsubstantiated in view of the fact that the complete cost of our legislative, executive, and judicial activities amounts to only about one per cent of the total Federal outlay. Therefore, one can hardly become alarmed over the cost of bureaucracy. The second charge, that it results in uniform­ity, is not necessarily true, since Federal aid through the grants might easily provide for initiation of projects through the States, and in this manner it could make room for local interest, for elasticity, and thus the prevention of oppressive uniformity. Even granting that bureaucracy would result in increased administrative costs, as well as the establishment of uniformity, one must keep in mind that by curtailing aid to schools one of the essentials which makes govern­ment a creative social agency is destroyed. Such economy, false in nature, tends to decrease the cultural activities of the government, which should be socially significant. It is generally agreed, however, that annual grants would necessitate the establishment of contact agencies in both the State and central governments. Moreover, gov­ernmental bureaus often deviate from the way of real research, investigation, and dissemination; they resort more and more on the use of authority and totalitarian methods. A by-product of bureau­cracy tnight be standardization, not only of opportunity, but more significantly of the courses of instruction. This is both undesirable and impractical. . Sectional interests and diversified occupational groups could not be served with equity and justice through the setting-up of a universal culture pattern for the United States. Furthermore, Federal aid is no guarantee of modernization, of stream­lining. The greatest service to be rendered by the National Govern­ment is through the assimilation of information and the dissemination of such knowledge rather than through domination, or established con­trol. Such dominion, resulting in rigid uniformity, would border too closely on state socialism. The decentralization of education has made the American system the most flexible in the world; one which can be altered to meet the changing needs, aspirations and wants of its citizens. Democracy faces a crisis, one of a most serious nature, should it permit political propaganda to become a part of its educa­tional program; European experience substantiates the fact that gov­ernments are prone to use the schools as mediums for propagandizing the formative and uncritical mind of the youth. The present system controls, through state legislation and through adverse critical opin­ion, the few institutions which may become distorted with propaganda. In a final analysis, recent experience gives evidence of the many political implications attending Federal aid. Self-seeking politicians in the National Government have too often employed this as a means of gaining votes; State officials have in turn used it to get as many financial plums as possible. Education should never be transformed into a political football to gain personal recognition and to satisfy sectional whims. If Not Federal Aid, Then What? The need for equalizing educational opportunities is a fact which may be established with ease; it is hardly a debatable question. Therefore, the problem becomes one of designating the source most able to meet this need, and the one possessed of a minimum number of evils. An annual grant by the Federal Government, as one can clearly justify, inaugurates a process endowed with many benefits and at the same time possessed of many evils. There are at least two other alternatives: the complete nationalization of education or the reorganizing of State systems to provide the coveted ideal of equalization. Recognizing the fact that education is not a static thing, twenty-one European countries altered, or changed entirely, their systems during the period, 1926-1935. While six of the new orders resulted from general revolutionary movements, the majority were instituted after long planning, and deliberately considered action. The general policy has been to nationalize education, and thus to unite, correlate, and centralize. In most instances the ~eward has been equal opportunity for equal intelligence-and all this without consideration of the social class or the economic status. On the other hand, education has too often been employed by the national State, as an agency of propa­ganda. Again, even as in annual Federal grants, nationalization has its merits and demerits. A great block of American opinion condemns both nationalization and the extension of grants by the central government. There remains only one solution to the pressing need, namely State reorgan­ization-politically, economically, and educationally. As has been noted, taxable properties, natural resources, and incomes are not dis­tributed in the various geographical sections of the United States in proportion to the population and the need. Similarly, the increased tax burden has created financial problems which tend to render the State and the local community powerless in so far as equalizing edu­cational opportunities is concerned. Certain factors must be con­sidered, however, before these agencies are completely excluded. Under the present system of special Federal grants for relief, for the development of State projects, and for similar plans, the State has been released from many of its obligations to its own citizens. Thus funds have been freed which could easily be applied to educational needs. Evolving out of this and other conditions, the tendency in the past few years has been for the individual State to accept in­creased responsibility for the support of public education, and legis­lation has been directed toward the establishment of foundation programs which provide minimum requirements for all schools. From this stems a degree of equality. Greater interest has meant enlarged appropriations, and the individual State has employed new tax measures, such as the severance tax, the income tax, and the sales tax as mediums for filling the public treasury. In 1933 nineteen States had personal income taxes, and four of these specified that all or a portion thereof should be used to support education; while forty-five levied an inheritance tax, and eight devoted all or a part to public schools. In Texas one finds a selective sales tax together with a gasoline tax, both of which are used in part to support public education. Even more significant were the appropriation bills signed by Governor W. Lee O'Daniel, June 30, 1941, providing for enlarged sums for education and for rural aid. The bill for education estab­lished a total sum of $22,602,069, which was an increase of $5,279,069; the rural aid appropriation was for $16,888,380, an increase of $3,238,380. The statement of Governor O'Daniel personifies the atti­tude of most state officials, when he said that he was "strongly in favor of doing everything we can to increase the educational oppor­tunities for our Texas boys and girls." In recognizing their increased obligation to the youth, i:µany States in the past decade have augmented the share of school support pro­vided from state resources; they have employed more equitable meth­ods of distributing state funds; they have relieved general property of its undue burden of taxation; and they have assured a universal school program in all districts which must meet certain prescribed minimum standards. If the State is able through reorganization of its finances to support, without outside aid, its program of learning, then it must establish as a major objective the equalizing of oppor­tunities in rural and city areas, and for those living in wealthy and poor communities. Federal Aid and Local Control It remains to observe if an annual federal grant is the only solution to the problem, then certain cardinal principles must be recognized in order that democracy in education shall be maintained, and in order that equality will be guaranteed. The grants should be made as a general fund so that local authorities may enjoy the elasticity which otherwise they would not enjoy. While grants could be em­ployed to subsidize matters of special national concern, no one phase of a state program should be over-developed at the expense of other phases. Local authorities should be permitted to use discretion in the administration of these funds. If the primary aim is to be the equalization of educational opportunities, then the State should not be called upon to give similar amounts. While the Government should be obliged to carry on research, making the results known and available, it in no way should control the curriculum. The grants should be used to support, to aid, and to improve the existing system, but not to build a competing one. Federal aid should be in harmony tional system, one for whites and another for Negroes, such as Texas, with a sound fiscal policy, and finally where a State has a dual educa­the equitable distribution of funds for both races should be a pre­requisite. Famine, plague, revolution, or war may eventually solve the prob­lem of equalizing educational opportunities. Until that day, how­ever, America-the arsenal of democracy-must evaluate precisely and scientifically every plan which might offer a solution. The first line of defense for the United States rests, not in the education of certain groups, but in the education of every individual in all groups. Capable leadership, plus an educated following, can and must secure the democratic way of life. GENERAL READING MATERIAL FEDERAL AID By Austin F. Macdonald, Professor of Political Science, University of California (From A. F. Macdonald, American State Government and Administration (1940). pp. 36-39. Copyright, 1940, by Thomas Y. Crowell Company, reprinted by permission.) The growth of Federal influence has not been solely the product of constitutional amendment and judicial interpretation. In recent years Congress has discovered a very effective means of securing a measure of control over matters not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore presumably reserved to the states. The plan has worked so well that it is now an established part of Federal adminis­tration. Its essential features are quite simple. Congress offers a sum of money to states for agricultural extension work, forest fire prevention or some other activity, provided they will match the Federal grant dollar for dollar, or in some other ratio, and agree to accept Federal supervision of their work. This offer is in no sense a club. It is an inducement, and the states are free to accept or reject it as they see fit. But the inducement is so powerful that acceptance follows almost as a matter of course. Every State, almost without exception, receives practically every subsidy offered by Congress, and agrees to the condition of the Federal grant. Typical Subsidy Law Under the terms of a typical subsidy law, the actual details of administration remain in the hands of State officials. They formu­late policies, prepare plans, choose subordinates, spend the combined Federal-State money. They carry on the day-to-day work for which the money was appropriated. The Federal Government merely acts in an advisory and supervisory capacity. But State budgets, policies, plans, and even personnel must receive Federal approval. They must at least measure up to minimum federal standards, though the states are free to exceed the minimum in any way they desire. Federal Standards and Control When a State legislature accepts the provisions of a Federal grant, it is required to establish a State agency to cooperate with Federal officials, or else designate an existing State agency for that purpose. The State agency~xtension director, vocational education board, forester, highway commission, or whatever it may be--prepares a The University of Texas Publication detailed plan showing exactly how the money is to be spent. Although this plan must conform to certain specifications of the Federal Gov­ernment, State officials are given considerable leeway. No at~empt is made to impose exactly the same conditions on all states, without regard to local conditions. The State plan is supposed to reflect local needs, even though it must measure up to the prescribed minimum. Thus the Federal Highway Act, authorizing the payment of Federal funds to the States for the construction of State road systems, specifies that "only such durable types of surfaces and kinds of material shall be adopted for the construction and reconstruction of any highway . . . as will adequately meet the existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions thereon." But the United States Bureau of Public Roads, which administers this subsidy law for the Federal Government, understands quite well that "durable" may mean many different things-varying with climatic and soil conditions, and the amount and nature of traffic. It insists upon durable roads whenever a state plan is offered for its approval, but durable does not have the same significance in the sparsely settled ranch lands of Montana as in the thickly populated valleys of New York. Federal suggestions frequently cause a modification of State plans, though only minor details are involved in most instances. Once Federal approval has been given a State is free to proceed with its program. It can be absolutely certain of receiving its allotment of Federal funds-provided, of course, it respects its part of the agreement. But when a State fails to carry out a plan that its own officials have prepared, the result is likely to be a withdrawal. of Federal aid. A number of States have acted in bad faith from time to time, and have been forced back into the straight and narrow path by the threatened or actual cutting off of Federal funds. Inci­dents of this sort are now infrequent; most State officials have learned that in order to keep the cash they must first keep the faith. A Federal bureau administering a subsidy law usually has a staff of inspectors who visit the States from time to time, audit State accounts, and report on the development of State programs. Some­ times these inspectors serve also as instructors, keeping State officials in touch with recent improvements and current practices in other states. Unsatisfactory conditions are reported promptly to Wash­ ington, and in most cases are remedied without the necessity of resorting to threats. The large majority of cooperating State officials value Federal advice highly, and follow it as a matter of course. Federal funds are granted to the states in support of a wide variety of different activities--construction of highways, maintenance of the National Guard, vocational education, reeducation of physically handicapped persons, financial assistance to the blind and the aged, and to dependent children, promotion of maternal and child welfare, maintenance of publtc employment offices, administration of unem­ployment compensation, extension work in agriculture, forest fire prevention, upkeep of state agricultural colleges and experiment stations. Even this long list is not complete. But some of the laws making grants to the states deviate from the standard pattern by requiring little or no effective federal supervision of state activities. The earliest subsidy laws omitted all reference to Federal approval of State plans, and some of the more recent statutes--especially those relating to the Federal Government's social security program-leave matters almost exclusively in State hands. Every year since 1922 the total of annual Federal appropriations to the states has been excess of one hundred million dollars. Ever since 1936 it has exceeded five hundred million. More than one­third of this huge sum is for old age assistance and other aspects of social security; another third is for highways. Results of the System This system of Federal aid to the States has materially stimulated State activity. It has produced results; in fact, it has brought results; and in nearly every instance the Federal Government has secured its money's worth. Agricultural extension work was un­known until it was introduced as experiment by the United States Department of Agriculture. Within a year after Congress first offered a subsidy for the reeducation of disabled persons, the number of states engaged in this activity had tripled. Most of the other Federal grants have been equally effective. Not only has more State money been spent, however; it has been spent more efficiently. State standards have greatly improved as a result of Federal supervision. The Federal influence is traceable in better equipment for vocational schools, more training and higher salaries for teachers of vocational subjects, better methods of forest fire prevention and highway con­struc.tion, better farms and better rural homes. Although a few of the more progressive states have established standards considerably higher than the Federal minimum, the large majority have been obliged to raise their standards in order to receive Federal funds. Despite the results accomplished by the Federal subsidy system, it aroused a great deal of opposition during the first years of its expansion. Men high in public life charged it with stifling local initiative, ignoring local conditions, and forcing all local activities into a uniform mold. "There is scarce a domain in the field of government properly belonging to the municipality or the State," declared Frank Lowden, then governor of Illinois, "which the Federal Government is not seeking to invade by the use of the specious phrase 'Federal aid.' ... This rapid extension of Federal administration not only means greatly increased expense because of duplication of The University of Texas Publication efforts, but it means the gradual breaking down of local self-gover~­ment in America." Since 1930 most of the critics of Federal aid have been silenced by the obvious need of the states for additional revenue. Grants for new services have been made, and grants for established services have been increased. As previously pointed out, however, some of the recent laws contain inadequate provision for Federal supervision of State activities. Constitutionality The question of the subsidy system's constitutionality was pre­sented to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1923. A tax­payer's suit to prevent the enforcement of the Federal Child Hygiene Act had been brought by a resident of Massachusetts, and when the suit reached the Supreme Court it was jointed to a separate action of the State of Massachusetts, also contesting the constitutionality of this child hygiene law. The Court dismissed the two cases for want of jurisdiction, pointing out that no justiciable issue was presented; but in handing down its decision it took occasion to brush aside the constitutional objections to Federal aid. The chief argu­ment against the system, that it was "an effective means of inducing the states to yield a portion of their sovereign rights," the Court answered by saying: "Probably it would be sufficient to point out that the powers of the states are not invaded, since the statute imposes no obligation, but simply extends an option which the State is free to accept or reject. But we do not rest here.... What burden is imposed upon the States, unequally or otherwise? Certainly there is none, unless it be the burden of taxation, and that falls upon their inhabitants, who are within the taxing power of Congress as well as that of the State where they reside. Nor does the statute require the States to do or yield anything. If Congress enacted it with the ulterior purpose of tempting them to yield, that purpose may be effectively frustrated by the simple expedient of not yielding."* FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION By S. B. McAlister, Ph.D., Professor of Government, North Texas State Teachers College One of the most interesting and important issues of the day is Federal aid to education. When we speak of Federal subsidies for educa~ion, we indicate that somebody is contemplating, figuratively speakmg, to reach over to Washington, pick up a bale of money from *Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (192a) F a more complete discussion of the American subsidy system see The Ad . . · .or of Federal, Grants to States, by V. O. Key. ' ministration the Federal Treasury, take it to the less fortunate states and dis­tribute it to their public school systems. This is the support part of the subject. But there is another part of the subject as well. This other part of the subject indicates that some public agency at Washington will devise some rules and regulations concerning how this money is to be spent, and people in the various states will follow these rules and regulations in order to receive the Federal funds. This is the control part of the subject. Those who favor Federal participation in education usually emphasize the support part of the subject; those who oppose it emphasize the control feature. It is easy for one to disagree with himself on these two phases of the subject. Two Major Subjects Another reason why this topic is a difficult one for discussion is that it covers two major subjects. In the first place it includes the subject of education. To understand this part one should know something about the principles, practices, and objectives of abstract and practical education. A person trained in the field of education knows and thinks most abotit this part. In the second place the topic includes the subject of government. This is the part the public official and the politician think the most about. It is a fact that the mind of the average politician and the mind of the person trained in the school of education do not run in the same channels. A person trained as a specialist in education is more likely to see the subject from the point of view of the ideal or what our educa­tional system should be. The politician is likely to mix in with his thinking his observations of the meaner and baser characteristics of the people with which he has dealt. He thinks in terms of practical political expediencies. In other words, he will think of public educa­tion as a process of government, not necessarily as a process of living the good life. All of us have a little of the educator in us; we also have within us a little of the politician. This is another thing that makes us disagree with ourselves on this subject. Since we are definitely planning the next step for Federal participation in education, it behooves us as students of government and as friends of education to know about the anticipated changes in our present set-up and to determine if possible whether these changes are con­ducive to a bett.er way of government and a bett.er way of education than the plan under which we are now living. The Seven Points of the Subject In order to give some form of organization to our thoughts on this subject, let us group our observations into the seven following topics: 1. The nature of our Federal system. 2. Past and present educational activities of the Federal Govern­ment. 3. Shortcomings and defects of the present public school set-up. 4. The recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee for lessening and eliminating these defects. 5. The extent of State versus the extent of Federal control of our public schools. 6. The extension of Federal influence over our schools: Does it mean more education, or does it mean better education for the American people? 7. The combining of local processes of democracy with National processes of efficiency in the administration of our public schools. Growing Federal Influence There was a time not so long ago when the American people looked to their State and local governments for the ordinary economic and social services furnished by their public agents. These same people now look toward Washington for a large portion of these same services. Our public needs and desires have overrun the boundaries of our local and state units of government and are now flowing in a steady stream toward our largest unit of government-the Federal Government at Washington. Territorial Division of Powers In the beginning all governmental powers were divided territorially into two parts: some of these powers, those that dealt with matters of national concern, were placed in the hands of Federal officers; those that dealt with matters of local concern were made the care of the states. As long as the American people lived a simple life it was not so difficult to tell what public services belonged to the national sphere, and what services belonged to the State and local governments. But with the increase in the complexity of living conditions, the line of federalism which separates the local functions on the one hand and the national functions on the other has become blurred, indefinite, and more difficult to draw. We do know definitely, however, that this line of federalism separating national from local functions has been so shifted that the government at Washington has found itself the possessor of more and broader powers. We are turning our faces to Washington for money, for rules, and for guidance, as the Mohammedans turn toward Mecca. One such func­tion that has been partly caught in this shift of federalism is that of public education. In the beginning education was primarily the function of private individuals. Each family was responsible for the education of its own members. The feeling that a democracy could succeed only where the masses had the benefits of educational opportunities caused th~ state and local units of government to set up a system of public schools. Democracy, however, is not limited to State and local governments. Theoretically, the National Government is to have the same democratic basis as is used for the states and local areas. Since education is one of the kingpins of State and local democracy, it is but natural that it would be considered as such in respect to the Federal Government. For this reason the Federal Government has been concerned with education almost from the beginning of our history as an independent nation. Federal Activities in Education Endowment of public lands for educational purposes was made to the states and territories by the Federal Government even before our Constitution was established. Federal support for instruction in land-grant colleges has been in existence since 1890. Home economics extension service and vocational educational service in our public schools have been supported in part from Federal funds since 1914 and 1917 respectively. A Department of Education in the Federal Government was installed in 1867; but this agency was later reduced to the Office of Education, and as such it has continued to this day. In the past several years, the Public Works Administration has spent hundreds of millions of dollars for the construction and repair of school buildings. The Emergency Education program, supported by federal funds, has employed thousands of teachers who have taught millions of pupils. The Civilian Conservation Corps has furnished educational opportunities to more than two million young men and adults. Many thousands of high-school and college students have received federal money through the National Youth Administration. And in 1934-1935 the Federal Government actually distributed $22,000,000 to the rutal schools of this country in order to keep them open for a reasonable term. Then in 1941 Congress appropriated $160,000,000 for schools and other services in defense areas. The larger portion of this huge sum will be spent in the fields of ele­mentary and secondary education for buildings, teachers, and text­books. When we consider this long list of Federal activities in the field of education we must conclude that at the present time education is in no small part a care of the Federal Government. The President's Advisory Committee on Education On September 19, 1936, President Roosevelt appointed a Committee of twenty-four public and educational leaders to study the subject of Federal relationship to State and local conduct of education, and to make a report upon the extent of the need for an expanded pro­gram of Federal participation. This committee, after examining the materials collected by a large number of educational and semi­educational boards and agencies, and after hearing the views of The University of Texas Publication various educational and public officials, made a 228-page report to the President in February, 1938. In this report the shortcomings and defects of the present system of public education were pointed out and suggestions were made relative to the lessening of or to the elimination of these defects. Since this report probably reflects the thinking of the educational leaders of this country, and also indicates some of the future trends in educational administration, it might be well for us to note the short-comings now prevalent in our public schools, as pointed out by the committee, to observe their suggested remedies, and then to analyze the meaning and importance of these suggestions. The next step which may be taken toward more Federal participation in public education is probably indicated by the contents of this report. The most outstanding defect arising from the administration of present-day public education, according to the committee, is the great inequality of educational opportunity. This great inequality of opportunity exists not only as between the states, but also among the pupils within the individual states. As evidence of the inequality of educational opportunity between the states, the committee offered the following facts: 1. The average annual amount of public funds spent for school purposes in the three lowest states is less than $30 per pupil. The average expenditure in the three highest states is over $115 per pupil. 2. The average annual compensation of teachers in the three lowest states is less than $600; the average for the teachers in the three highest states is above $1,800 annually. 3. The average length of term in the two lowest states is 140 days, while the average term in the nine highest is 180 days. In some units within particular states the expenditures per classroom unit are more than twelve times as much as the expenditures for similar classroom units in other districts within the same State. The committee further found that 31 per cent of the children who are in rural areas have access to only 9 per cent of the wealth for school purposes. Other defects of our public school system, as pointed out by the committee are: 1. Our present school system is not adequately training our chil­dren either for vocations or for leisure. 2. There are too many one-and two-teacher schools with small enrollments. We have 44,000 school districts with enrollments rang­ing from one to seventeen pupils. 3. Twenty-five per cent of the teachers in the rural schools have no preparation beyond the high-school level. 4. There is too much decentralization of school administration. We have 127,000 separate school units in the United States. These school districts are administered by approximately one-half million local trustees. The number of trustees in twelve of our states out­number the teachers. 5. Most schools are deficient in their facilities for giving training in physical and health education. 6. Less than fifteen per cent of the crippled and handicapped children have sufficient educational opportunities. 7. There is too much discrimination between the educational op­portunities of the Negroes and the educational opportunities of the whites in all states. 8. There is a general lack of proper training for active participa­tion in the duties of citizenship. 9. Our schools are giving too little emphasis to the cultural services of art, music, and such related subjects. 10. Poor housing facilities for school children are found in many ai:eas. 11. We have a decided lack of proper teacher preparation in this country. 12. Many of our State departments of education are poorly administered. 13. Our rural areas on the one hand and our metropolitan areas on the other hand show signs of too much local control. 14. There is a general lack of coordinated long range planning for educational purposes. You will observe that these defects cover both the content of our public school system, and the method of its administration. Obviously, if the Federal system of education would become predominately national in character, and thus our worst fears of Federal control would be realized. Federal Aid as a Reme~ In keeping with the custom long established in our Federal system whereby the Federal authorities enter the field of governmental regu­lation of subjects ordinarily left to the states, the committee recom­mended a Federal grant of money to be followed by an indefinite and an uncertain degree of Federal control. Under this recommendation the states would have received a total of $873,750,000 for public education. This money would have been distributed over a period of six years beginning in 1939, and would have been earmarked for the following seven distinct phases of public education: 1. $540,000,000 to be used as general aid for elementary and secondary education, mainly to equalize educational opportunities. 2. $170,000,000 for the construction of school buildings and the reorganization of school districts. 3. $75,000,000 for adult education. 4. $30,000,000 for the improvement of teachers and for teacher-training institutions. 5. $30,000,000 for library service for rural areas. 6. $18,250,000 for research and planning; and 7. $10,500,000 for improvement of State Departments of Education. It is obvious that the Committee expected the Federal Government to influence the administration of these seven phases of public edu­ cation. Rules for Distributing the Aid It was recommended that this money be granted in general on the basis of the financial needs of the states. The money was not to be matched by State funds except in one instance, namely, where the states desire to construct public school buildings. It was recom­mended that all money be spent in accordance with joint plans worked out by representatives of the state and national governments. Money would be distributed through State departments of education, and the distribution would be equitable as between the Negroes and whites. General aid for reading materials, transportation, scholar­ship, health, and welfare services would be available to both public and non-public schools subject to the wishes and control of the states. All Federal funds would be audited by the United States Office of Education, which office would have had the authority to suspend payment to any State that "fails to maintain an adequate adminis­trative agency or fails to make required reports with reasonable promptness." National Control of Education Throughout the report the Committee apparently sensed the fact that public education lies closer to the hearts of the American people than does any other public function, and that if the Federal Govern­ment takes over a large portion of this function, it would be taking the longest single step it could take toward weakening the place of the States in our Federal system. This would be true since the Fed­eral Government would be throwing its influence into the personal lives of all Americans through that service that affects them most closely. In other words, the government that furnishes the service most .desired by the people will undoubtedly command the major at­tention and interest of those people. The members of the Committee, like most Americans, were torn between two loves-the love for local self-government with its liberty, local interest, and inefficiency, on the one hand, and the love for a strong centralized government with its added money power, its free­dom from local politics, and its general efficiency on the other. The feeling for local self-government is expressed in the following quota­tion taken from the report: ''The joint plans should not be allowed to include any prescriptions whatsoever, with respect to the local management of schools, the con­tent of the educational program, or the processes of education. The Committee recommends strongly that Federal statutes and joint plans relating to all forms of education under State and local auspices reserve explicitly to State and local agencies the administration of schools, determination of the content and processes of education, and decision as to the best uses of the allotments of Federal funds within the types of expenditures for which Federal funds may be available ..• It is evident that the American people would rightfully object to any attempt to use Federal aid as a means of controlling the content or processes of education in the schools." In such language does the Committee show its regards for a system of public education operated by State and local governments. After making this States' rights declaration, the Committee then recommended that the Bureau of Census of the Federal Government be made responsible for the taking of the scholastic census, a function that is now performed by the states, and that the Secretary of the Federal Treasury be given the duty of determining how much each State needs for its school system. All funds would be audited by the United States Office of Education. In other words, the Federal Government would perform more functions, than merely the function of handing over the money. The following sentences from the report indicates that the Committee desires a certain amount of Federal control. The report says: "The Committee is of the opinion that the distribution of Federal funds within a State is not a matter that should be left exclusively to State officials, in view of the source of the funds and the purpose for which the grants are recommended . . • There must be a limited amount of control directed primarily at honesty, legality, and efficiency in the expenditure of public funds ... The United States Office of Education should be given authority to suspend payments to states • • . during any period in which the State fails to make required re­ports with reasonable promptness." These more or less conflicting statements indicate in a general way the uncertain state of mind of the American people in respect to transferring more of our State and local functions to Washington. Our traditions, our vague sense of fear of a powerful government not immediately under our individual control and our inherent dislike of governmental ·domination from any source, make us hesitate in going the whole way toward depending upon the central government for social services. On the other hand, our desire for what seems to be more and easier money and more and greater efficiency influ­ences us to favor an ever-widening sphere of National control. The very fact that the central government has been asked to contribute is73,000,000 to the support of public education indicates that we are moving toward a greater degree of control of public education from Washington. More or Better Education? We might well ponder this question : Is the purpose of Federal contribution to education to give us nwre education, or is to give us. better education, or both? On the surface it would seem that the primary purpose of the contributions is to provide educational oppor­tunities for more people for a longer period of time; but running all through the report are statements indicating that the education itself should be made better. Although it specifies that the central govern­ment should have nothing to do with the content and processes of the public school system, yet the defects of our curriculum and school administration are clearly pointed out and it is indicated that a grant of Federal funds, together with an accompanying degree of Federal con.trol, will tend to lessen these defects. In other words, it is ex­pected that Federal participation in education will not only help to furnish more educational opportunities, but it will help to make the content of our public school system better. Much of the political and social philosophy of recent years has been tinged with a strong spirit of economic equality. There has been a general feeling that wealth should be more nearly equalized; that the strong should be made weaker and the weak should be made stronger; that the good things of life should be more widely distributed and that the Govern­ment should take from those who have, and make provisions for those who may be in need. This philosophy characterizes the thinking behind the movement for Federal participation in education. The Committee recommends that the federally appropriated money be dis­tributed to the states on a basis of need. There will undoubtedly be many difficulties involved in the distribution of this money on such a basis because of State and sectional jealousies. Obstacles to Equalization In the first place, it will be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory basis of need; and once this base is determined, it will be in a constant state of flux, due to the migrations of people and the various eco­nomic developments within the different states. In the second place, there will be certain practical difficulties arising in the taking and checking of the census rolls. This will be especially true in those areas where there is an irregular change of population, and where there are large groups of foreigners as in some of our metropolitan areas, and in such territory as Southwest Texas where there is a large mobile mass of Mexican population. Since each name on the census roll will be worth several dollars, each locality will make the number as large as possible. The third obstacle arises from the difficulty of properly estimating the factors that make up educational Equalization of Educational 0'}1portunity costs. There will be considerable variation from state to state in those factors that go to determine financial needs of public schools. The greatest obstacle will arise from the fact that where the forces of democracy operate, the basis of "need" will tend to be the political strength of that particular State in the affairs of the Federal Govern­ment. It will not be difficult for the school communities in all states to show a need for more money. It will be unusual if they do not apply political pressure to their agents of government, in an effort to secure this money especially if they know it is being distributed to other states. It so happens that the wealthy and powerful states are those that will not have great need for the money. It also hap­pens that these same states exert the greatest influence upon our agents of government. The proponents of Federal participation in public education hope that these more powerful states will use their power unselfishly and contribute heavily to the general fund without asking for much in return. The recommendation of the Committee that the Federal funds be distributed on a basis of need, will succeed fully only .if the masses of voters in the wealthy states do not bring pressure on their Federal Representatives for a portion of those funds; or, in case such pressure is brought, the Federal Representa­tives will not be unduly influenced by it. Democracy vs. Efficiency If there is any one strand of philosophy running all the way through the report of the Advisory Committee on Education it is that democ­racy and efficiency are at variance in the administration of the public schools in this country. "An intense localism is at once the strength and weakness of American schools," says the report. "Local interest and support have been the major factors in the development of the most democratic system of education in the world ... We also bear the burden of many grave disadvantages that trace back directly to local responsibility for public education," the report continues. In other words, local control of our schools has given us a democratic system of education, but it has not given us an efficient system. Our rural schools, those areas of little external control and influence, exemplify the democratic spirit, but not an efficient school plant. Our great metropolitan centers are also areas where local govern­ments predominate. They too show more democracy than efficiency. It seems almost to be a maxim that in any complex society, the further the government is from the direct control of the masses, the easier it is to secure efficiency in administration, provided the proper per­sons are in control of the government. As a general rule, the Fed­eral Government administers Federal functions more efficiently than the State Governments administer state and local functions. This is in part due to the fact that in administering Federal functions the 64 The U11,iversity of Texas Publication Federal agents do not come in contact with the democratic and politi­cally ignorant masses as closely as do the State agents when they administer State law. Democracy Threatened? There is in the back of the minds of most Americans the feeling that the Federal Government is not subject to the same degree of democratic influence as are our local and State Governments. Many are not certain that the present democratic machinery will control a government located at a distance from them as closely as it will control a government near by. And they are probably correct. Probably for this reason there is more efficiency in the Federal Gov­ernment than there is in the State and local governments. But the question still arises to perplex us: How much efficiency and how much democracy do we really want in our public school system? One can see running all the way through this report of the Advisory Committee the feeling that what we need in our public school system ·is more efficiency. That is why the Federal Government was asked to contribute the $873,000,000 to the public school system; that is why the Committee reco~mends that the spending of this money be super­vised by Federal agents. Not more democracy in operating our public schools, but more efficiency is the motivating philosophy throughout the report. Yet, the Committee does not desire to go the whole way toward efficiency. State and local control must be maintained. In effect the report says: "Let us keep what democracy we have in the administering of our public schools, but let us add to this democ­ racy a large slice of efficiency to be provided by an agent that is not so closely influenced by the democratic processes." Distributing the money on the basis of need will undoubtedly bring forth the exercise of the strongest democratic processes that exist in our Federal Government. If these forces are strong enough we can expect an impairment of efficiency in the operation of the Federal plan. If they are not so strong we can expect our schools to be administered more efficiently under a plan of more Federal super­vision. The Committee failed to perceive a plan whereby we could operate our public schools with a one hundred per cent efficiency under a one hundred per cent democratic process. I fail to see any further in this direction than did the Committee. Our public leaders and thinkers will undoubtedly work out a plan to give us a better balance between these two forces than we have today. That is our wish and our hope. My feeling is that a limited support and control of education by the Federal Government will not give as much efficiency as its supporters probably expect, nor will it destroy as much of the democratic spirit as its opponents prophesy. ANALYSIS OF THE FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION ACT OF 1939 By Senator Elbert D. Thomas, of Utah (From Seventh-Sixth Congress, 1st Session, SetlGte RepMt No. 244, April 3, 1939, to Accompany S. 1305.) The bill no.w reported by the committee has been perfected by care­ful study and deliberation, not only in the present session but in previous years. It covers the same subjects and provides for appro­priations substantially the same as those provided for in the substi­tute for Senate bill 419, Seventy-fifth Congress, favorably reported by this committee on April 19, 1938. That bill was extensively dis­cussed throughout the country for many months, with many sugges­tions for revision which were taken into account when the present bill was drafted and introduced. The committee has given further extensive consideration to the bill and has found it necessary to recommend only . . . minor amendments. . . . Appropriations Authorized Appropriations are authorized by the bill for a period of six years, beginning in the next fiscal year at approximately $75,000,000 and increasing to about $208,000,000 in the fiscal year ending in 1945. The appropriations authorized by the various titles and parts of the bill are shown in Table 1. TABLB 1.-Appropricltione avthorized bv Se"'1.t6 Bill 1105 [In millions of dollars] Fiscal year­ 19451942 1943 1944 1941 1940 ----------~1------­ Title L Grants to States for the Improvement of Public Elementary and Secondar7 Schools: Pt. 1. General Federal Aid 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 Pt. 2. Improved Teacher Preparation ----­ 40.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Pt. 3. Construction of School Buildings 4.0 2.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Pt. 4. Administration of State Departments of Education ----­ 80.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Title Il. Grants to States for Adult Education -----­ 1.5 1.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Title Ill. Grants to States for Rural Libral"J' Service -­ 10.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Title IV. Grants for Co0pera­tlve Educational Research and Demonstrations and for Administration ---2.19 4.0 2.0 4.86 5.46 6.06 Title V. Education of Chil­dren Residine on Federal Reservations and at ForeignStations 8.0 4.26 8.875 8.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Total appropriations authorized ----75.19 166.86 115.875 I146.26 187.46 208.06 Purpose of Appropriations The primary purpose of the bill, as stated in the first section, is:­"to assist in equalizing educational opportunities, among and within the States, in so far as the grants in aid to the States herein authorized will permit, without Federal control over educational policies of States and localities." Section 1 provides further that­"The provisions of this Act shall be so construed as to maintain local and State initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education and to reserve explicitly to the States and their local subdivisions"­the following matters: "The administration of schools, including institutions for the prep­aration of teachers. "The control over the processes of education. "The control and determination of curricula of the schools. "The methods of instruction to be employed in them. "The selection of personnel employed by the State and its agencies and local school jurisdictions. "The determination of the best uses of the funds appropriated under . the act, in so far as consistent with the purposes for which funds are made available under the act." The bill as a whole presents a comprehensive program. As indi­cated by table 1 it provides for a series of grants to the States, in­cluding grants for the operating expenses of public elementary and secondary schools; for improved preparation of teachers; for the con­struction of school buildings, especially in connection with the reorganization of school districts; for the administration of State departments of education; for adult education, and for rural library service. These grants are provided for in titles I, II, and III. In addition, title IV provides for educational research and demonstra­tions and for the administrative expenses of the Office of Education in the Department of the Interior, while title V provides for the education of the children residing on the various Federal reserva­tions throughout the country. Apportionment of Grants The plan of apportionment for the General aid for elementary and secondary schools is specified in sections 13 and 14. The plan of apportionment is a true equalization plan; it will accomplish a very high degree of equalization for the areas where financial ability is most inadequate, particularly when the relatively small size of the fund to be distributed is considered. The apportionment procedure under any equalization plan is neces­ sarily somewhat complex, but the procedure specified in the present bill is much less complex than the plans for local equalization which have been enacted into law in a number of the States, and it is based essentially upon the same principles. Basically, there are only three problems to be solved: (1) The measurement of the educational load of the various areas, in this case the States; (2) the measurement of the :financial ability of the various States; and (3) the combination of the measures of educational load and of financial ability into a meas­ure of :financial need that can be used in the distribution of funds. Educational load.-The measurement of educational load is pro­vided for in section 13, paragraph (c). Educational load is defined in general as the number of inhabitants, 5 to 19 years of age, in each State. To take account of the educational costs, due to sparsity of popula­tion in rural areas, the bill provides that in computing educational load each rural child shall be counted 1.4 times. When educational programs comparable in quality are provided, educational costs are higher in the country than in the city because either the number of pupils per teacher is small, which increases the cost of instruction, or it is necessary to provide transportation to central schools, in which case expense is incurred for transportation. The cost-correction fac­tor for rural areas in the bill is based upon studies which indicate that it is a satisfactory figure for national use. The basic statistics as to numbers of children are to be furnished by the Bureau of the Census. The bill specifies the use of annual esti­mates in the belief that official estimates will represent the existing facts much more accurately than the use of statistics from the 1930 census during the period before the 1940 census statistics are avail­able. The 1940 statistics will also be somewhat out of date before they are completely compiled, but when available can be used to verify and improve the estimates. The use of estimates is also specified elsewhere in the bill where population statistics are required (secs. 204(b) and 304(b)). Financial ability.-The bill provides in section 13, paragraph (d), that the financial ability of the re~pective States with respect to the support of public education shall be annually estimated by the Secre­tary of the Treasury. He is required to use a uniform procedure devised for the specific purpose of making such estimates. In general, there are two methods which might be used to make the estimates. One method wouid consist of estimating directly from available data the amount of funds which each State could raise from the application of a uniform tax plan of the sort which should be used to finance a social service such as education, as distinguished from other functions of government which may be financed through taxation based on the benefits principle. 68 The University of Texas Publication The other method of making the estimates would be to use a com­bination of economic indices based on regularly collected economic data, combining these indices in such a way that they will yield results similar to the direct estimates. The advantage of this second plan consists mainly in the fact that it avoids discretion in handling data relating to individual States. The direct estimates necessarily must be made on a State by State basis; they will probably be correct for most States, but they may be erroneous in individual cases. A formula procedure, using nationally collected economic data, will automatically correct for the deviations which would result from individual State by State direct estimates. Although the bill vests substantial discretion in the Secretary of the Treasury to develop the best possible procedure, it indicates clearly that he is intended to use objective types <;>f economic data in making the estimates. The factors listed in the bill at the end of section 13 (d) are those which have been found to be most useful. Financial need.-The combination of the measures of educational load and financial ability to provide an index of financial need is pro­ vided for in section 13, paragraph (b), which specifies that the index of financial need shall be computed by determining the excess, if any, of each State's index of educational load over 85 per cent of its index of financial ability. The way the apportionment procedure would operate may be illus­trated from the data provided in table 2. This table includes an index of educational load, computed as specified in the bill except that 1930 census data are used, and an index of financial ability of the various States, which was prepared by the President's Advisory Com­mittee on Education on the basis of data for the year 1935. By reference to table 2, it appears, for example, that the State of Wisconsin has an index of educational load of 2.314 and an index of financial ability of 2.055, these being its percentages, respectively, of the adjusted number of children and of the financial ability of all the States. The computation for Wisconsin would then be as follows: Index of educational load__________ __________________ ______________________________ 2.314 Index of financial ability______________________ ____________________________ _____________ 2.055 85 per cent of index of financial ability_______________________________________ _____ 1.747 Index of financial need____________________________ ______________________________ .567 It should be noted that the respective indexes of financial need are not percentages; the sum of all the indexes is considerably less than 100. As shown by table 2, however, the index of financial need of 0.567 for Wisconsin is 1.62 per cent of the sum of such indexes. Wis­consin would, therefore, receive 1.62 per cent of the grants allocated on the basis of need. This would amount to $649,596 in the case of Equalization of Educational Opportunity the initial grant of $40,000,000 for Jleneral Federal aid for elementary and secondary schools. West Virginia may be used to illustrate the procedure for a State having proportionately less financial ability than Wisconsin. Again referring to table 2, the computation for West Virginia would be as follows: Index of educational load _______________________________________________ 1.734 Index of financial ability____________________________ . 716 85 per cent of index of financial ability___________________________ .609 Index of financial need_________________________________ 1.125 West Virginia would accordingly have 3.22 per cent of the sum of the indexes of financial need, and would receive $1,288,881 from the initial grant of $40,000,000 for general Federal aid. New York is one of the wealthier States with high financial ability per child of school age. As shown by table 2, its index of educational load is 7.796, but its index of financial ability is 19.595. Even 85 per cent of its index of financial ability is very much greater than its index of educational load; there is no excess of educational load as compared with 85 per cent of the financial-ability measure. The same situation obtains with respect to about a dozen States. Sec­tion 14 of the bill provides, however, that every State accepting the grants and agreeing to make certain reports shall be credited with an index of financial need not less than 5 per cent of its index.of educa­tional load. New York is, therefore, assigned an index of financial need of 0.389, and on that basis its apportioned share of $40,000,000 would be $445,667. Table 3 shows similar estimates of the total amounts which would be apportioned to each State under titles I, II, and III of the bill. With the exception of a part of the fund for the administration of State departments of education, which is used to make fiat grants of $5,000 to each State, all of the grants authorized in title I are to be allocated on the basis of financial need in the manner previously explained. The grants for adult education under title II are to be apportioned amon~ the States in proportion to their respective popu­lations 20 years of age and older. The grants for rural library serv-. ice, under title Ill, are to be apportioned on the basis of the rural population of the respective States. The estimates given in tables 2 and 3 are representative of the dis­tribution which would result under the bill. The actual apportion­ment, however, would be based on up-to-date population estimates and, where applicable, on new estimates of financial ability prepared under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. Index of State educa­ tional load1 1 _U_n_i-ted--S-ta_t_es___-__-__-__-__-__-i--10-0-.0-0-0 Alabama ····-------------· ~ Arizona ····-----------------·-.384 Arkansas -------1.924 California ·······-----------------3.341 Colorado ··-·-·-···--··-·----------· .827 Connecticut ···········-···--1.163 Delaware ····-····---·--·······-.179 District of Columbia _ .235 Florida ---------········· 1.189 Georgia ---·-···-··-·-·--3.009 Idaho .422 Illinois····======~~~= 5.144 Indiana --····--·················· 2.414 Iowa -·-··----·-··-······· 1.992 Kansas --------·--··-1.551 Kentucky 2.512 Louisiana =~==:==::::::= 1.983 Maine -------··-·······-.625 Maryland ····-------·--1.226 Massachusetts ---········-2.684 Michigan --------······ 3.498 Minnesota 2.073 :sss15o·usnipp1____·_·__:_:_=__ 2.128 ·__-__-_~_--_---__== !118 .w. 2.732 Montana ·-··----········-.463 Nebraska ----·--·--·---------1.180 Nevada ·--------·-----.062 New Hampshire _ ____ .326 New Jersey -·········-···-2.727 New Mexico ---·············· .427 New York -·········--········ 7.796 North Carolina ---·--·-· 3.470 North Dakota -·--···--·-· .708 Ohio --·---------------·-····-----4.715 Oklahoma ··········----------2.313 Oregon ---·--·····-·--···----------.678 Pennsylvania ---------·---7.493 Rhode Island ···-····-·----.453 South Carolina ·······---·-2.026 South Dakota .672 Tennessee ···-········--------···· 2.507 Texas -·---············----------· 5.320 Utah -----·-------···-------------··· .475 ~1::1~rat _ _::::~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~ :::~2:~~~ Washington ........... ·······--1.110 West Virginia ----------------1.734 Wisconsin --·--·-·-----------····· 2.314. Wyoming ------------------------.192 Index of SS percent financial ofindexof ability financial for 19352 ability 2 3 """'iGria09' °" pflf'-child bGBia of cuTTent ezpndit1'res for public schools, 19fl5-Jl6, and illuatratitie diatrib1'tion of l~0,000,000 of general Federal aid, as shown by table J. by State Percentage ratio of Current estimated expenditures general aid, for public Illustrative 1939-40, to State schools, 1936-36, general aid, current per child 5-19 1939-40, per expenditures, years of age, child 1935-36 2 inclusive1 8 Total $45.18 $1.08 . 2.40 District of Columbia ----­96.65 .13 .14 .16 .16 Nevada ---------­97.83 87.98 .15 .16 New York------­ California 82.82 .14 .17 New Jersey --·--------­ .14 .21 Massachusetts --------­ 65.66 .18 .21 W;yoming -------­ 62.76 .17 .24 71.60 .16 .26 Connecticut ----------­ 60.19 Delaware -------------­ .14 .26 Rhode Island 54.56 .H. .27 Washington -------­ 51.00 .16 .27 .14 .30 57.10 48.71 New Hampshire Illinois ---------­ .15 .32 Oregon 46.66 .19 .36 Maryland ___.------­ 51.42 .15 .37 Ohio ------------­ 41.24 .27 .51 Maine -----·-·------­ 62.68 .24 .64 Colorado 86.88 .89 .72 Minnesota --------­ H.63 .61 .95 Pennsylvania -------­ 53.25 .47 .97 Montana -----------­ 47.95 .71 1.17 Michigan ----------------­ 60.50 .71 1.38 Vermont ------------------­ 51.86 .66 1.44 39.18 .H 1.61 36.05 Kluouri ----------­ 48.64 .77 1.67 Florida --------------------­ Wfaconsin ---------------­ .66 1.74 Iowa ------------------­ 88.14 47.74 .87 1.82 Indiana ------------------­ 1.11 2.32 Arizona ---------------­ 47.77 1.18 2.36 Nebruka 49.88 41.96 1.04 2.48 Idaho ---------··---------­ 48.96 1.37 2.80 Utah -------·--··-------·----------­ 48.24 1.48 3.08 Kansas ---------­ 48.95 1.88 3.14 South Dakota ------------------­ 49.19 2.02 4.11 North Dakota ---------------­ 40.78 2.10 5.16 Texas 81.79 1.71 5.38 New :Mexico----------­ 40.85 2.23 6.47 West Virginia -----------------­ 38.74 2.19 5.64 27.05 2.11 7.82 ~~:;:a___ ::=:=:::::::==:==::::_-===: 23.27 2.00 8.60 Louisiana ·--------·------------------------­ 23.58 2.23 9.47 Kentucky --------------­ 22.67 2.88 10.48 Tennessee ---------·----------­ 21.34 2.27 10.62 North Carolina ·-··-----------­ 20.20 2.37 11.74 Georgia ----· ·--------------·---------­ 17.50 2.86 13.48 South Carolina -----------­ 17.47 2.72 15.60 Alabama ----------------------­ 16.66 2.74 16.44 :Mississippi ----------­ 17.91 2.97 16.69 Arkansas ----------------­ 13.83 2.74 19.80 Other areas ---------------------­ 16.12 2.62 17.35 1Current expenditure data from Biennial Survey of Education, 1934-36, vol. II, ch. Il, pp. 92-8 ; child-population data from 1930 Census. ~ TABLlll 4.-IUuatrative dt.tributio11. of propoeed Federal aid grant• for educa.tio11. for the 11ear 1989-40 State depart­ Teacher School Adult General Library prepara· educa­ mente of aid for build· State tfon8 educa,.. service' inge1 Total schools1 tfon1 tion• 6 7 15 2 8 4 $40,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $2,000,000 $70,000,000 $1,000,000 $20,000,000 United States ····················-······---·························· 68,962 4,1615,157 2,648,892 127,169 92,168 61,770 1,271,696 Alabama ············-·····-····-····-·-----······························ 10,860 278,076 166,967 7,848 16,647 78,478 7,886 Arizona ·······-··············-···-·-····-·····-·········-···················-········ 2,871,862 1,761,738 87,686 66,107 158,868 876,866 37,212 Arkansas ···-············-····--·----------·--·--···· ····--··-······­ 191,827 9,1567 619,122 269,0156 64,991 915,664 8,1518 Calitornia -·------··-··---·-···-··--·-------···········-···· 15,900 118,004 42,118 18,706 260,900 159,002 7,170 Colorado ········-········-·-------····--·-·-···-··-·-···-····-··­ 66,449 8,828 193,009 6,222 66,1564 17,227 88,224 Connecticut ·······-······----···················-···················--·-·­ 10,811 1516 85,400 6,1155 10,060 4,178 5,190 Delaware ···········-··-··-·····-··-····-·-·--···-····'···T--····-----··-· 18,748 688 49,486 6,874 6,2158 22,928 District of Columbia -·-···--·---·---··-···-··-·········-·--·-­ 14,878 287,664 640,848 148,782 10,288 68,644 2'&;887 Florida ···-··-··---·-·-------·---···--··--··--·······-·-······--···-­ 2,424,248 121,212 8,982,890 1,212,121 49,1579 102,746 72,989 Georgia ····-····-···--····--·-··-·····--···-··················­ 84,,082 198,201 9,910 99,101 8,646 16,786 11,440 Idaho ·-·-·······-·-·-····--·---····----·····························-· 294,488 14,722 147,219 8615,678 10,414 826,647 72,888 Illinois ········-·-··--····-----·---·---·······-·····-···············-­ 994,448 49,722 1,762,067 497,222 28,287 186,086 62,807 Indiana ········-·······················-···-'--·················-················· 609,498 80,476 304,749 1,116,788 16,208 154,086 101,728 Iowa ············-············-···--··-···--·--···-·-········--·-··---··-­ 768,862 87,692 1,806,1566 876,926 18,862 76,484 41,789 Kansas ·-·-----·--··········---------------···----·····-··--------·-··­ 2,080,131 101,1506 1,0115,0615 42,881 66,829 8,861,284 96,872 Kentucky ····-·-······-··-·-·--···-·····--·-·-·······-········--·---······ 1,1547,808 77,890 773,902 2,15615,918 38,462 46,978 77,878 Louisiana ··-······--·-··-·----··----··-·--·--·----·----··-··--­ 2,6315 62,701 26,360 187,'1'2 6,969 82,881 17,266 Maine ···············-······-···--·····-··--·······-·-····-·-···-··· ·-······­ 8,496 69,886 84,948 6,286 206,617 67,199 28,809 Maryland ····-··············-··--··-·-······-·-··-····~···-·-···----···­ 158,620 7,676 76,760 '41,962 16,163 .7,828 181,020 Maesachueette ········-··-··---·········-····-···········-····-·······­ 964,6156 48,288 482,828 22,789 66,847 1,772,1158 198,860 Michigan -··--···-·-·-···-·---·-······-····--·-···········-·····-····-····­ 879,218 18,961 189,609 11,978 47,866 761,112 108,986 Minnesota ·---·---···--···-·····---·---·····-···-··········--·----·-------­ 2,079,896 108,969 1,089,698 48,287 70,6154 60,687 8,897,HO Miaafsslppl -··--····--·---·············-·····-··-·-·····-····--·-­ 1588,466 26,928 269,288 14,902 168,197 64,186 1,066,907 Miaaourf ·········----·-······-·-················-·················-··---···-­ 118,422 15,671 156,711 7,086 21,632 12,929 217,351 Montana -··---·-·-··-·····-··-·--······-················-···----­ 427,886 21,867 218,668 12,8158 66,080 Nebraska --··--····--·-··-----·--·-··--·······-···········-····-···-·-···-··· 82,887 762,696 8,487 172 1,719 15,063 4,088 2,062 16,526 Nevada ···-····-··----------·······----·-··----· 18,881 917 9,1615 15,887 19,811 New .Hampshire ····-------·--·-···--··-··-···--········----··-·-······ 6,969 60,680 ~ ~ ~ ~· ;l ~ eoa. ~ ~ t-3 ~ ~ ~ ()" g. a ~· 444,422 169,592 25,457 155,811 7,791 7,865 77,906 New Jersey --------------------------------------··---·--------­ 323,080 16,15' 587,964 14,773 11,476 10,941 161,640 New Mexico ----------------------·------------------------------· 445,667 22,283 549,274 74,914 1,828,166 18,195 222,883 New York ·-----···-----·····------------·-··-·-·--------------­ 4,548,288 105,659 85,585 2,774,818 188,742 56,025 1,387,409 North Carolina ------------·--·-----------··--------------------· 817,255 24,418 20,578 489,202 24,460 244,601 13,996 North Dakota ----------------------------------------------------­ 77,568 278,795 1,137,605 494,930 24,746 14,101 247,465 Ohio -----------------------------------------------------------------­ Oklahoma 87,701 57,084 2,791,168 1,684,188 84,207 86,969 842,069 16,825 41,879 136,579 45,827 2,292 6,848 22,918 Oregon -·--····-··---····--·--------------·-------------------------------­ 112,828 2,629,451 1,857,622 882,849 67,881 29,965 678,811 Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------··--·----­ 1,888 26,860 28,462 76,678 1,818 18,175 5,485 Rhode Island ------·-------------------------------------------------­ 49,590 2,994,976 56,427 1,888,804 91,940 919,402 88,818 South Carolina ---···-··----------------·-----------------·---·----·-····· 20,875 767,721 26,181 450,249 22,512 18,279 225,126 South Dakota ··-·······----------··--······-··-------·--·-·-··-···------­ Tennessee 3,232,914 62,865 1,956,808 97,840 96,514 978,404 40,988 Texas 124,661 5,374,809 219,482 8,204,445 160,222 1,602,223 68,926 437,863 8,760 268,922 18,014 12,946 9,761 129,461 Utah ----·---···------···--·····-·-------------------------------------­ 8,738 116,666 14,887 56,188 2,807 6,032 28,069 Vermont ------------···---------·-----·--------------------------------· 69,330 2,716,966 1,684,874 88,519 81,743 817,487 85,068 Virginia ---·-·············-------··-···----------------­ 198,241 24,614 64,158 68,002 8,208 32,079 6,180 Washington ---------------------------------------···---·----­ 2,132,619 44,877 1,288,881 61,275 64,444 644,441 28,701 ;:Jo!~~gi~~~--:=::::::~~===:::=:::=::::::::::::::-_~:::::::: 50,224 1,193,605 649,696 32,480 16,945 119,462 324,798 Wyoming 5,637 87,606 11,467 9,000 673 5,211 6,728 Outlying areas 63,946 48,667 3,262,095 1,995,761 99,788 56,152 997,881 2,425 416 Alaska ----------·-·-·------------------------------------------------­ 306 365 American Samoa ------------------------···--·-··-····-··--·-· 579 316 *~~':ii·--::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::=::::::~~=:::::::::::::::::: 13,242 6,6.73 40,489 46,583 Puerto Rico ···-------------·--···-·····--------------------------­ 861 809 Virgin Islands ----------~-~---· ·-·-----------------·-·-------------­ ~ ~ §' ('t­ s· ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('t­ s· ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ;l. 1Distributed on basis of financial need as shown in table 1. § ~. lll>istributed on basis of $5,000 flat grant and the remainder in proportion to financial need adjusted for omission (under S. 1305 and H. R. ("t­ 3517) of Guam and American Samoa. ~ 3Distributed on basis of number of persons 20 Years of age and over, as of 1930. •Distributed on basis of number of persons living in towns and viJlages of less than 2,500 population and in the open country, as of 1930. Ql CD TABLE 10.-Estimated yield of the Biz taxes selected for the measure of financial ability, by State, 1995 [All figures in thousands of dollars] ~ ;;::,­ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ '"i ~ ~. ~ ~ c ........ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g: -~· (') ~ ~ c ~. ;;2 2,869 5,286 17 23,606 15,384 6 28,45' 1,874 19,886 2,189 -----------6 20,876 2,118 18,664 8,859 1,812 21 18,895 2,848 997 12,608 2,899 80 18 ~~;~~~~~~~~~~ 8,408 18,416 18,644 1,852 1'1 -·------------­ 1,410 18,085 13,020 8,688 17 Alabama ------------------------------------------------------­ 8,051 18,987 4,098 8,600 8,198 Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------­ -··---------­ 13,828 '180 9,960 2,860 220 18 Arkansas -·----------------------------------------------------·-------­ ·-----------­ 874 12,871 9,220 2,764 18 South Carolina ------------------···--------------------------------------­ 12,717 l,'150 9,580 1,866 21 Maine --------------------------·-----·-----------····--------------------------­ 12,674 798 10,100 1,681 92 8 Montana -------------------------------------------------------------­ --·---------­ 12,866 622 8,852 2,887 5 Mississippi ---------------------------------------------------------------------­ ----------··­ 11,102 826 10,102 669 5 South Dakota ·----------­ 10,626 289 9,764 683 North Dakota --------··-­ --------296 9,819 7,420 606 984 18 Utah 859 9,005 7,490 1,148 8 Idaho ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 1,209 8,854 6,880 810 5 New Hampshire ------------------------·---------------------------------­ --------·---­ 6,422 418 5,000 737 272 Wyoming ------------------------------------------------· --------------­ -------------·­ -----------------8 5,778 469 4,450 851 ·-·------·----­ -···---------··-­ 6,190 605 4,000 680 6 --------·-412 5,023 848 8,816 942 5 ~~~¥!=i~~-~~~=::::::::::::::::::==:~~:::::=:::::::::::::=:::::::::=::: 4,089 827 3,190 276 296 -~ ~ ~ §' ~ eo>. Q ~ ~ [ s· s - 0 ~ ~ Q "'i c:-+­ ~ eo>. ~ ~ 00 -::J The University of Texas Publication EDUCATIONAL FINANCE ACT OF 1941 A Bill, S. 1313, introduced in the Senate on April 7, 1941, by Sena­tors Elbert D. Thomas of Utah and Pat Harrison of Mississippi and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, has the following caption: "To strengthen the national defense and promote the general wel­fare through the appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in meeting financial emergencies in education and in reducing inequalities of educational opportunities. "Be it enacted by the Serw,te and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the 'Educational Finance Act of 1941.'" Finding of Fact Section 1. The Congress hereby finds (1) that public elementary and secondary schools available throughout the nation for all children and maintained in keeping with American standards of life and edu­cation are essential to the national program of total defense; (2) that because of shifting of population due to the exigencies of national defense, because of the time required to add new property develop­ments to local tax rolls, and because of the burdens already imposed upon property taxes from which public schools are largely sup­ported, State and local school jurisdictions in many cases are unable to provide adequate educational opportunities in the areas adjacent to defense activities and industries; (3) that millions of children, especially those who reside in rural areas of diminished natural re­sources, children residing on Federal reservations and properties with inadequate or no public school facilities, and the children of migratory workers most of whom are engaged in agricultural pursuits and for the children of whom no provisions of public school advantages are made, are in areas and school districts in which the public school facilities are wholly inadequate; (4) that the States, because of insur­mountable differences in tax-paying ability in relation to the number of children of school age, and notwithstanding greater efforts by the States having the least financial ability, are unable to reduce sub­stantially these inequalities of educational opportunity. Statement of Policy Sec. 2. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress, without Federal control over the educational policies of States and localities, to assist in providing adequate educational facilities for children in localities affected by the influx of population due to the exigencies of national defense, and to provide for the equalization of educational opportunities of all children in need of action to that end, especially for children residing in rural areas, children residing on Federal properties and reservations, and the children of migratory workers, in so far as the grants-in-aid to the States herein authorized ·are sufficient to do so. The provisions of this Act shall be so con­strued as to maintain local and State initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education and to reserve explicitly to the States and their local subdivisions the organization and administration of schools, the control over the processes of education, the control and determina­tion of curricula of the schools, the methods of instruction to be employed in them, and the selection of personnel employed by the State and its agencies and local school jurisdictions. Appropriation Authorized Sec. 3. For the purpose of providing additional public fi!ducation facilities in areas affected by defense activities and industries and for effectively equalizing educational opportunities among and within the States, especially for children residing in rural areas, children residing on Federal reservations and properties, and the children of migratory workers, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $300,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1942, and for each fiscal year there­after. The sums herein authorized shall be used for making pay­ments to States which through their legislatures have accepted the provisions of this Act and which have complied therewith: Provided, That in any State in which the legislature has not taken action as herein specified, the chief executive of said State may, until such action has been taken or until six months after the adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature in such State fallowing the date of enactment of this Act, whichever first occurs, take such action for such period as is herein required to be taken by legislative enact­ment. Apportionment Sec. 4. (a) There is hereby created in the Federal Security Agency a Board of Apportionment (hereinafter called the "Board") to be composed of five members, to be appointed by the President of the United States, not more than two of whom shall be full-time Federal officials. Members of the Board, not full-time Federal offi­cials, shall receive $25 per day for actual time devoted to the work of the Board (not to exceed sixty days in any one fiscal year) and necessary travel expenses and the rate per diem for other expenses allowed to Government employees while absent from official head­quarters. Members of the Board who are full-time Federal officials shall receive no additional compensation but shall be reimbursed for any necessary expenses incurred in carrying on the work of the Board. (b) It shall be the duty of the Board (1) To determine the need for funds to provide for school buildings, equipment, and current expenses for public schools for children in the areas affected by the shifting of population because of the exigencies of national defense. In determining such need the Board shall take into account other Federal appropriations for school building purposes, the ability of the local school jurisdictions to provide for public educational facilities, and the availability of Statefunds to finance the public school program in the areas affected. (2) To determine the nature and extent of the educational inequalities existing among the States because of the number of children in rural areas, the number of children residing on Federal reservations and properties, and the number of children of migratory workers. In determining such inequalities the Board shall take into consideration such factors, but without limitation, as the availability of free elementary and secondary school advantages, the number of children of school age in average daily attendance, the provision for instructional materials, the adequacy of school buildings and equipment, the adequacy of facilities for pupil transportation, the expenditure per pupil for free public school opportunities, the · need for additional or better qualified teachers particularly in schools serving rural areas of low taxable resources, and the need for equal­ization of educational opportunities for minority races, taking into consideration the financial implication of Federal court decisions inter­preting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as it relates to equal rights to educational opportunities. (3) To estimate the financial ability of the respective States to sup­port reasonable standards of free public elementary and secondary school facilities according to a uniform procedure applied to all the States in such way as to determine the amount of revenues which could be raised from a uniform tax plan applied to all the States. (4) To determine, on the basis of the data obtained pursuant to clauses (2) and (3) of this subsection, the financial need of the respec­tive States for Federal grants-in-aid for the support of public elemen­tary and secondary schools in such amounts as will most effectively equalize educational opportunities. (c) On the basis of its :findings, the Board shall allot to the respec­tive States before the beginning of each fiscal year, or as soon thereafter as possible, such amount for that year as may have been appropriated by Congress under this Act; except that (1) not to exceed 25 per centum of such amount shall be allotted to the States for use for public school facilities, including buildings, equipment, and land, in areas in need solely because of the exigencies of national defense, (2) not to exceed 25 per centum of such amount shall be allotted to the States for land, and the construction, improvement, and equipment of school buildings other than buildings specified in Equalization of Educational Opportunity clause (1), and (3) not to exceed 2 per centum of such amount shall be used for the expenses of the State departments of education. Certification and Payment Sec. 5. The Board shall certify regularly the amounts allotted to each State which has complied with the provisions of this Act to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall, through the Division of Dis­bursement of the Treasury Department and prior to audit or settle­ment by the General Accounting Office, pay to the treasurer or corresponding official of such State the amount certified for each fiscal year in four equal installments, as soon after the first day of each quarter as may be feasible, beginning with the quarter com­mencing July 1, 1941. Each such treasurer shall account for the moneys received as a trustee of funds of the United States, and shall pay out such funds only on the requisition of the State educational authority. A copy of each such certification shall be deposited with the United States Commissioner of Education (hereinafter called the "Commissioner"). State Acceptance Provisions Sec. 6. (a) In order to qualify for receiving funds appropriated under this Act, a State-­ (1) through its legislature, shall (A) accept the provisions of this Act and provide for the administration of funds to be received; (B) provide that the State treasurer, or correspond­ing official in that State, serve as trustee for funds paid to the State under this Act; (C) provide that its State educational authority shall represent the State in the administration of the funds received; (D) provide for an adequate system of auditing by the State educational authority of the expenditure of funds received and apportioned to local school jurisdictions, or other State educational agencies, and for an adequate system of reports from local school jurisdictions and other educational agencies of the State to such authority; (E) provide that the State edu­cational authority shall make such reports to the Commissioner with respect to the expenditure of funds received and the progress of education generally in such form and containing such infor­mation as the Commissioner may require; (F) in States where separate public schools are maintained for separate races, provide for a just and equitable apportionment of such funds for the benefit of public schools maintained for minority races, without reduction of the proportion of State and local moneys expended for current expenses (not counting moneys expended for the construction or equipment of school buildings or the purchase of land) during the fiscal year ended in 1940 for public schools for minority races; and The University of Texas Publication (2) either through its legislature or through its State educa­tional authority, if the legislature so directs, provide a State plan of apportioning the funds received under this Act in such manner as to assist effectively in carrying out the purposes for which funds are appropriated under this Act, and so as to reduce substantially inequalities of public elementary and secondary schools especially among school jurisdictions serving rural chil­dren and children of minority races for whom separate schools are maintained by law, taking into account the educational load, the total tax load, and the financial ability of the respective local jurisdictions to support public education, and the State funds available to such jurisdictions: Provided., That each such plan may be revised or amended by giving notice to the Commis­sioner; and ( 3) with respect to acceptance of funds under this Act, shall transmit through its State educational authority to the Commis­sioner official notice of acceptance and certified copies of the enactments and apportionment plans required herein in connec­tion with such funds. Any amendments of such enactments and revisions of such apportionment plans shall in like manner be promptly transmitted to the Commissioner. (b) The funds appropriated under the authorization of this Act shall be allotted only to those States which, during the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the apportionment is made, have provided from State revenues for all public elementary and sec­ondary school purposes a total not less than the total amount spent for such purposes in the fiscal year ended in 1940: Provided, That if any State fails during any year to comply with the conditions speci­fied in this section due to acts of God or other circumstances over which such State has no control, the provisions of this section shall not apply. Availability of Appropriations Sec. 7. The funds paid to the States under section 5 shall be avail­able for disbursement by each State for any or all of the following purposes: (a) To local school jurisdictions or other State educa­tional agencies, in order effectively t.o reduce inequalities of edu­cational opportunities, for all types of expenses of public elementary and secondary schools (which may include through the fourteenth grade) and their auxiliary services; (b) to local school jurisdictions for the purchase of land and for the construction, improvement, and equipment of school buildings as the State educational authority finds to be in the interest of greater efficiency and economy; and (c) for expenses of the State department of education necessary for the effi­cient administration of the funds received under this Act, if the appointment and tenure of the personnel of such department (other than members of boards within the State, elected officials therein, and the chief State school officer) is upon the basis of merit and efficiency and without regard to political considerations. Auditing Sec. 8. The Commissioner shall cause an audit to be made of the expenditure of funds under this Act by each State educational au­thority and to review audits made by such authority with respect to its local jurisdictions. If the Commissioner finds that any portion of such funds is expended by any State in a manner contrary to any provision of this Act, or shall otherwise be lost or unlawfully used, an equal amount shall, after reasonable notice, be withheld from the next ensuing payment to any such State unless such amount is replaced· by such State and expended for the purposes originally intended. All funds expended under the provisions of this Act shall be expended only for public purposes through public agencies and under public control. Sec. 9. In auditing the expenditure of funds allotted under this Act to the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, as provided in this Act, the Commissioner is authorized to utilize the services of employees of any Federal department or agency by agreement with the head of such department or agency. Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury shall suspend payments under this Act to any State whenever the Commissioner certifies, after notice and hearing, that any such State has failed to replace funds received under this Act which are lost, or unlawfully used, or expended in a manner contrary to the provisions of this Act or has failed to make required reports with reasonable promptness. Upon certification of the Commissioner that any such State has rectified such failure, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transmit to such State the amounts so suspended. The sums authorized to be allotted to any State under this Act shall, when certified for payment, remain available for not to exceed one fiscal year after the fiscal year for which such certification was made. Authorization for Administration and Research Sec. 11. (a) For services and other expenses necessary to the administration of this Act, and for the making of necessary surveys and other studies in connection with the best utilization of the grants to States authorized in this Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year an amount equal to 1 per centum of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year under the provisions of section 3 of this Act. Any of the fund~ authorized under this section may be allocated by the Commissioner The University of Texas Publication to State departments of education for surveys or other studies perti... nent to the best uses of the funds received. under this Act. Such allocations shall be made by joint agreement between the Commis­sioner and the chief State educational autho-rity. The amounts thus allocated shall be certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Commissioner, and shall thereupon be paid to the cooperating State departments of education. Suitable provision for audits, reports, and repayment to the United States of amounts unexpended, lost, or mis­applied shall be incorporated into the joint agreement. (b) The Commissioner shall, so far as feasible, lend such advice and counsel as the States may request in working out legislative or administrative plans for expenditure of funds received through this Act so as most effectively to lessen inequalities of educational oppor­tunity within the States. Reporting Sec. 12. The Commissioner shall publish annually a full and com­plete report showing accurately the status of education in the United States. Each such report shall include an analysis and summary of the legislative and administrative provisions adopted by each State for the expenditure of funds received through this Act, and also sta­tistical information showing the degree to which each of the States has accomplished the improvement and equalization of educational opportunity in comparison with previous years, especially as measured for the various local school jurisdictions by availability of elementary and secondary education, length of minimum school term, the propor­tion of children of school age in average daily attendance, provision for reading and other instructional materials, provision for pupil transportation, and average expenditures per pupil, and, in States maintaining separate schools for separate races, the degree of equal­ization obtained, and other information pertinent to the status and progress of education. In all such reports relating to the status of education in States where separate educational facilities are main­tained by law for any minority racial group, data relating to such separate educational facilities shall be separately reported. The Commissioner shall also make an annual report in writing to the Congress, giving an account of all money received and allocated by him under this Act. Miscellaneous Sec. 13. (a) The Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Federal Security Administrator, is authorized to make such rules and regulations, not in conflict with the provisions of this Act, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. (b) No political or civil rights or activities of any teacher or school administrator shall be restricted or affected in any way because of any financial benefit accruing to such teacher or administrator from funds appropriated pursuant to this Act. (c) Title to school buildings and equipment constructed or bought with funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall remain in the United States, unless purchased by the State or local school juris­diction, if the construction or acquisit~on of such buildings or equip­ment was made necessary by the establishment or enlargement of an industry performing work in connection with national defense contracts. Definitions See. 14. As used in this Act­ (a) The term "State" shall' include the several States, the Dis­trict of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto. Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam. (b) The term "legislature" means the State or Territorial legisla­ture or other comparable body, except that in the District of Columbia it shall mean the Board of Education, and in American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands it shall mean the Governor. (c) The term "minority race," or "minority racial group," shall mean any race or racial group that constitutes a minority of the pop"Q.lation of the continental United States. (d) A just and equitable allotment or distribution of the funds provided under this Act for the benefit of a minority racial group in a State which maintains by law separate educational facilities for such minority racial group, means any plan of apportionment or distribution which results in the expenditure, for the benefit of such minority racial group, of a proportion of said funds not less than the proportion that each such minority racial group in such State bears to the total population of that State. (e) The term "State educational authority" means, as the legis­lature may determine, (1) the chief State school officer (such as the State superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of education, or similar officer), or (2) a board of education controlling the State department of education; except that, in the District of Columbia it shall mean the Board of Education, and in American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, it shall mean the Governor. Separability Sec. 15. If any provision of this Act or application thereof to any State, person, or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provisions to other States, personl), or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. U.S. SENATE BILL 1313 DIGEST OF EDUCATIONAL FINANCE ACT OF 1941 By L. D. Stokes, Department of Research, Tezas State Teachers Association (From The Teza.a Otitlook• .June. 1941. pp. 18-19. Reprinted by permission.) Statement of Policy Section 1 of the bill concerns the need for the appropriation. Section 2: Statement of Policy. "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress, without Federal control over the educational policies of states and localities, to assist in providing adequate educa­tional facilities for children in localities affected by the influx of population due to the exigencies of national defense, and to provide for the equalization of educational opportunities of all children in need of action to that end, especially for cbildren residing in rural areas, children residing on Federal properties and reservations, and the children of migratory workers, in so far as grants-in-aid t.o the states herein authorized are sufficient to do so. The provisions of this Act shall be so construed as to maintain local and State initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education and t.o reserve explicitly to the states and their local subdivisions the organization and admin­istration of schools, the control and determination of curricula of the schools, the methods of instruction t.o be employed in them, and the selection of personnel employed by the State and its agencies and local school jurisdictions." Section tJ: Appropria.tion Authorized. Appropriates $300,000,000 for fiscal year ending June 30, 1942, and for each fiscal year there­after for purposes mentioned in Section 2 above. Requires State Legislature to accept the provisions of the ·act and gives State super­intendent right to take such action as is necessary where the legisla­ture has not taken action until such action has been taken or until six months after the legislature has adjourned its first regular session. Apportionment Section 4: Apportiomn.ent. Creates a Federal Board of Appor­tionment of five members appointed by the President of the United States, two of whom may be full-time Federal officials, and provides. for per diem and expenses of board. Sets forth duties of board which shall (1) determine need for funds to provide for school buildings, equipment, and current expenses for public schools in areas affected, taking into account other Federal appropriations, the ability of the local school jurisdictions to provide public educational facilities and the availability of State funds to finance the public school program in the areas affected; (2) determine the nature and extent of the educa­tional inequalities existing among the states because of the number of children in rural areas, et cetera, taking into account the availa­bility of free elementary and secondary school advantages, the number of children in average daily attendance, facilities for pupil transpor­tation, et cetera, and taking into consideration the financial implica­. tion of federal court decisions interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as it relates to equal rights to educational opportunities; (3) estimate the financial ability of the respective states to support their schools according to uniform pro­cedure applied to all states in such manner as to determine the amount of revenues which could be raised from a uniform tax plan applied to all the states; (4) dete~ine, on the basis of data obtained, the financial need of the respective states to effectively equalize educational opportunities. On the basis of its findings the Board is authorized to make annual allotments to the states, provided that (1) not to exceed 25 per cent of the amount shall be used for public school facilities including buildings, equipment and land in areas in need solely because of the exigencies of national defense; (2) not to exceed 25 per cent shall be used for land and the construction, improvement and equipment of school buildings other than buildings specified in clause (1) ; ( 3) not to exceed 2 per cent shall be-used for expenses of the State depart­ ments of education. Section 5 concerns the Certification and Payment of the allotments. State Acceptance of Funds Section 6: State Acceptance Provis-ions. (a) Provides that the State Legislature must (1) accept provisions of the act and provide for the administration of funds; (2) provide that the State Treasurer serve as trustee for funds; (3) provide that State educational authority shall administer the funds; (4) provide an adequate system of auditing and reporting by the State educational authority; (5) pro­vide that state educational authority make required reports to the U. S. Commissioner of Education concerning expenditure of funds and the progress of education generally, and (6) provide for just and equitable apportionment of the funds for the benefit of public schools maintained for minority races without reduction of the pro­portion of State and local moneys expended for current expenses during the fiscal year ended in 1940 for public schools for minority races. The Legislature or State educational authority must provide also a State plan of apportioning funds in such manner as to carry out the purposes of the act. (b) Funds shall be allotted only to states which, during each fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the apportionment is made, have provided from state revenues for public free elementary and secondary school purposes a total not less than the total amount spent for such purposes in the fiscal year ended in 1940, unless failure to do so is due to the acts of God or other circumstances over which the state has no control. Section 7: Availability of Awropriations. "The funds paid to the State under Section 5 shall be available for disbursement by each State for any or all of the following purposes: (a) to local school jurisdictions or other State educational agencies, in order effectively to reduce inequalities of educational opportunities, for all types of expenses of public elementary and secondary schools (which may include through the fourteenth grade) and their auxiliary services; (b) to local school jurisdictions for the purchase of land and for the construction, improvement, and equipment of school buildings as the State educational authority finds to be in the interest of greater efficiency and economy; and (c) for expenses of the State departm~nt of education necessary for the efficient administration of the funds rGceived under this Act, if the appointment and tenure of the per­sonnel of such department (other than members of boards within the State, elected officials therein, and the chief State school office1') is upon the basis of merit and efficiency and without regard to polit­ical considerations." Federal Auditing Section 8: Auditing. Provides that the U. S. Commissioner of Education shall cause an audit to be made and if any portion of the funds are expended by the State in a manner contrary to the provi­sions of the Act or shall otherwise be lost or unlawfully used, an equal amount shall, after reasonable notice, be withheld from the next ensuing payment to any such State unless such amount is replaced by such State. All funds are to be expended only for public purposes, through public agencies and under public. control. Sections 9-15, inclusive, concern administration in outlying posses­sions, suspension of payments, appropriation of 1 per cent per annum of the total grant for making of surveys and other studies necessaey for .the best utilization of the grants, reporting, definitions, miscel­laneous provisions, and a saving clause. Among the miscellaneous provisions there is a statement that title to school buildings, et cetera, bought with the funds granted, unless purchased by the State or local jurisdiction, shall remain in the United States if such buildings, et cetera, were constructed or acquired because of the establishment or enlargement of an industry per­forming work in connection with national defense. Another pro­vision of interest to teachers is that "No political or civil rights or activities of any teacher or school administrator shall be restricted or affected in any way because of any financial benefit accruing to such teacher or administrator from funds appropriated pursuant to this Act." TEXAS EDUCATIONAL NEEDS By L. A. Woods, State Superintendent (Letter and Statement, April 24, 1941, Hearings on S. 1313, p. 373.) Texas is faced with a serious shortage in school buildings and equipment because of the fact that this State is caring for about one-sixth of the training program now going on over the N a.tion. Teachers must be supplied for the children of the families who are coming in to work in defense industries, school buildings must be maintained, and supplies furnished. The Texas Legislature has been lending its efforts toward the elimination of all inequalities in our public school system since 1915, but we lack much in having solved the problem. Many rural schools still have short terms; teachers are poorly paid hence not well trained in many instances; buildings are in need of repairs and equipment; our school libraries need many new books and trained librarians; our transportation facilities are very inadequate, and bus drivers are poorly paid. Whereas the average per capita cost of public schools (current expenditures) over the Nation is above $82, Texas spends -0nly $63 on each child in actual daily attendance. Itemized needs of Texas schools I. For reduction of inequalities in elementary and sec­ondary schools : (a) To operate schools 9 months, and to more nearly equalize salaries : 14, 795 teachers are teaching 8 months or less, 1 month's salary, at $90__________________ 7,775 teachers in rural districts teaching for $962, to bring salaries to $1,000______ 3,328 teachers in rural districts teaching for $987, to bring salaries to $1,000______ 9,204 teachers in rural districts teaching for $836, to bring salaries to $1,000...... $ 1,331,550 295,450 13,000 1,509,456 (b) To provide buildings, repair buildings, and to provide equipment. Lag during de­pression haven't caught up_________ (c) Transportation facilities: New busses needed-500, at $1,750_____ 4,525 drivers salaries, now $30 per month, to raise to $50 minimum________________ Total________________ 8,000,000 875,000 814,500 12,838,956 II. Increase of salaries for Negro teachers made neces­sary through recent Federal court decisions: 6,144 classroom teachers, at $1,000____ _______ 295 principals, at $1,350________________________ 6,144,000 398,250 Total salaries needed_________ Paid in 1939-40_____ ____ _______________ 6,542,250 4,538,251 Amount needed ---------------------------------------------­ 111. Additional teachers for children of migratory work-ers-oil field, truck gardening, seasonal crops, etc.: Attached list shows need of 240 additional teachers at $1,000______________________ _______ _________ Buildings and Equipment are included under I (b). IV. Educational facilities and additional teachers in de­fense areas, both military and industrial; and educational facilities for children of Federal em­ployees residing on Government property and reservations: See attached list____________________________ Additional training areas (estimated) __ _____ Total__________ _____________________________________________ _____ Recapitulation of Needs 1. To eliminate inequalities________________________ _____________________ 2. Salaries for Negro teachers______________________ 3. Teachers for children of migratory workers______________ 4. Educational facilities defense areas and reservations 2,003,999 240,000 14,049,883 7,500,000 21,549,883 $12,838,956 2,003,999 240,000 21,549,883 Grand total for Texas______ _ ___________ _______________________ $36,632,838 Migratory Workers Influx of Population Seasonal crops: Brownsville, Robstown, Raymondville, Crystal City. Dam Construction: Resor, Denison. New Oil Development: Odessa, Crystal City, Lamesa, Weslaco, Harlingen, Sundown, Monahans, Denver City, Hawkins, Fort Stockton, Goldsmith, Graham. Paper Mill: Lufkin. Two hundred and forty new teachers will provide for 6,720 pupils, which number is probably too low an estimate. ...... Educational facilities and additional teachers in defense area.a, both military and industrial; and educational facilities for children of Federal N) employees residing on Government property and reservations State and area Abilene (Camp Barkley) --·--------·---······-·· Arlington (American Airplane Manu­ facturing Co.) -·------··-···-···--·-················ Bangs (Camp Bowie) ··-······-----·-··-·····-··· Bay City (Camp Hulen) -·--·-··--·········· Brackettville (Fort Clark ) ···-·-············ Brownwood (Camp Bowie and lllth Flying Field ························------·-·········· Corpus Christi (United States naval air station) ··-·------··················------···-······ El Paso (Fort Bliss) ........................... . El Paso County (Fort Bliss) -----·····-··· Fort Worth (Consolidated Aircraft Co.) --··--····-····--··-·················-··················· Galena Park (ordnance depot) ......... . Galveston (Camp Wallace, Fort Crockett) --·-·····-----······-· -···--·---...... . Galveston County (Camp Wallace, Fort Crockett) -------······-···-······-··········· Garland (Southern Aircraft Cor­ poration) -······----------·········--------··········· Grand Prairie (Hensley, Army air­ port and naval air base and North American Aviation, Inc.) ·-----·········· Houston (Ellington Field and Camp Wallace at Hitchcock) Needed for children residing on Federal reservations Construction of-Oper­ation I and Sites I Addi-Equip-Alter-I main- New tions ment ations Total mgs nance b.uild-te­ 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 I I I 1,000 40,080 8,100 2,126 61,306 2,000 30,000 1,000 80,000 87,000 186,000 16,000 19,000 7,600 2,500 98,000 236,600 96,500 3,160 6,000 3,000 40,000 686,000 266,000 145,000 16,000 1,140,000 10,000 Trans­porta­ tion 9 11,240 36,000 16,600 8,000 70,000 ~ Salaries of teach-~ ere ~ 10 ~­ ~ ~ ..... ~ 9,675 ~ ~ 21,000 ~ 41,000 11,626 ~ 104,020 ~ O' C:-0. ..... ~ s· ~ Laredo (Fort Mcintosh -·and air school) -------­----­--­--------­---------­Marfa (Fort Russell) ----­----------------------­Mineral Wells (Camp Wolters) --------­Orange (Orange Shipyards) ---­----------­Palacios (Camp Hulen) --------------------­San Antonio (Fort Sam Houston, Bexar County) ------­-------­----------­----­--­---Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Consolidated Air Craft Corpora­tion -------­---------­-------------­--­--­--------------­----­Texas City (Camp Wallace and Fort Crockett -------------------------------------­Victoria (air base) 10,000 I 50,000 I 150,000 201,500 58,500 35,200 20,000 52,000 2,857 3,150 180,000 362,000 41,207 5,000 7,500 1,130 3,ooo I 30,000 --57.ooo 6,150 Total -------------------------­------­------------­-------­Grand total 134,ooo I 1,243,580 541,800 264,482 20,650 2,204,512 34,780 144,740 I 280,5so 2,664,562 s ~ ..c::i §" <:"!­ .... c ~ c --... ~ (':I ~ <:"!­ .... [ c 0 ~ ~ c ""i <:"!­ ~ ~ ~ ,... 0 co ....... ~ Needed for children not residinar on Federal reservations Conetructfon of Opera­ tion and State and area Sites New Trans­ maln­ Salarl• build· Addi-I Equip-j Alter­ tlona ment atlone Total porta­ te­ of teach­lnira tlon nance 91'11 -----------··---­ 1 4 6 2 8 8 7 9 10 8 Abilene (Camp Barkley ...................... 22,000 150,000 10,000 81,060Arlington (American Airplane Manu­facturinir Co.) ···-···--·------· ---····-...... . 182,000 3,500 275,000 28,000 50,000 Banara (Camp Bowie) .......... -··---··-·------· 801,000 9,000 8,000 82,000 8,600 Bay City (Camp Hulen) ---------·-------·---­ 8,400 2,000 40,000 42,000 210,000 25,000 66,500 Brackettville (Fort Clark) .... ----·--·--· ... 814,000 20,000 87,000 14,848 1,475 1,100 5;6:fo 5,850Brownwood (Camp Bowle and lllth Flylnir Field) ......... -·---·········---........ . 17,428 285,000 78,200 22,250 190,000 79,700 Corpus Christi (United States naval air etatlon) .......... ····-----·""·---·-···-······---­ 528,450 82,950 8,000 18,775 184,000 87,000 60,000El Paeo (Fort BlfH) . __ .............. ..... . 15,000 236,000 7,000 9,750 100,000 588,000 80,500 254,000 El Paeo County (Fort Bliss) ---------.. 88,000 846,000 11,500 17,000 116,500 20,250 Fort Worth (Consolidated Aircraft Co.) ··-------------·---------······-------------···--·· 158,000 12;000 169,500 5,600 184,891 8,000 754,884 247,500 1,000 896,775 85,857 Galena Park (ordnance depot) ......... . 75,000 75,000 150,000Galveston (Camp Wallace, Fort Crockett) .............................................. . 45,000 Galveston County (Camp Wallace, Fort Crockett ..................................... . 50,000 250,000 25,000 7,000 825,000 27,800 2,460 Garland (Southern Aircraft Corpora­ 185,000 90,000 85,000 8,000 9,040 868,000 tion) 12,875 125,000 2,810 6,000 1,485 180,000 ~ ~ ~ ~· "i ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ O" .... - ~ .... ~ Grand Prairie (Hensley. Army air­ port and naval air base and North American Aviation, Inc.) -------­9,600 61,187 Houston (Ellington Field and Camp 21,80036,893266,000 64,200 66,000 383,800 (S) 82,000 Laredo (Fort Mcintosh and air school) -----------------·--·-·----------------­ 314,00011,140,000Wallace at Hitchcock) ------------­ ----·-14:525 4,00040,000 7,000 61,000 Mineral WellB (Camp Wolters) ----··--­ Marfa (Fort Russell) --------·--·-------­ 49,000 Orange (Orange Shipyards) -------------­ 62,000 2,600 9,600200,000 226,000 11,000 491,600 242,820 Palacios (Camp Hulen) -------------------­ 27,600100,000 931,000 102,000 230,700 80,000 1,443,700 24,000 San Antonio (Fort Sam Houston, Bexar County) ---------------------------------­ 3,0006,00070,000 20,0006,000 40,000 136,000 89,860 Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Con­ 2,4602,370 126,100 26,643 161,743 solidated Air Craft Corporation ____ 147,420 Texas City (Camp Wallace and Fort Crockett) ------------------------------------­ 105,00028,0006,000 173,000 82,600 24,680 2,000 288,080 12,200 28,000 Victoria (air base) 222,000 66,000 12,05410,000 46,000 15,000 367,000 86,0006,849 68,000 '1,600 5,000 80,600 1,612,097 Grand total --------------------------­ 324,860 3,742,848 2,679,784 267,030579,6231,076,089 164,000 19,026,671Total ------------···-·-----------····-··--·-·-----·--·-·-­ll,385,321 ttJ ~ ~ ~ §' ~ <:">. 0 ' ~ ~ ~ c:-t­<:">o IA total of 1,140,000 is given for Houston broken down. (Ellington Field and Camp Wallace at Hitchcock) and included in this total-figures not 0 ~ 2rncluded in column No. 17. ~ Estimated needs of schools where new areas are to be located, $'1,1>00.000. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~· ~ ~ 0 ere THE FINDINGS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION By Floyd W. Reeves, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Education (From Hearings on S. 1313, 1941, pp. 104-124.) The Advisory Committee on Education was originally appointed by the President on September 19, 1936, for the purpose of studying the existing program of Federal aid for vocational education and preparing a report with recommendations. The Committee was pro­ceeding with this task when, in April, 1937, the President decided to broaden the functions and enlarge the membership of the Com­mittee. The President requested the Committee to give extended consideration to the whole subject of Federal relationship to State and local conduct of education and to prepare a report. The Com­mittee completed its work in 1939. . . . Present Applicability of the Committee's Findings Although no additional data have been collected and no additional studies made by the Advisory Committee since 1938, there is no reason to believe that the conditions and needs portrayed by the Committee have changed for the better to any appreciable degree. For this reason, the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee are as applicable to the situation today as they were 3 years ago. It is true that many of the States have experienced some degree of recovery in school finance since the investigations of the Committee. The appalling differences in educational opportunities are today as great as they were 3 or more years ago. In fact, several authorita­tive studies have shown that these differences have existed to rel­atively the same degree for decades. From all that is known about the relative taxpaying ability and economic resources of the several States, there is no reason to believe that, in the absence of Federal participation in the financing of public education, there will be any substantial reduction in the inequalities in educational opportunities among the States in so far as these inequalities depend upon financial resources. As evidence that the amount of difference among the States in the ability to support education and other public services is relatively permanent, the following facts are cited:1 Using 5 to 17 years old as 100, the indexes of the richest State (excepting Nevada) and poorest State in 1900 were 261 and 25 respectively; in 1912, 228 and lNorton, John K., and Norton, Margaret A., "Wealth, Children and Education," pp. 18 and 43. 28; in 1922, 184 and 34; in 1934,2 213 and 34. On the basis of eco­nomic resources in relation to the number of children of educable age, the relative ability of various regions to support education since 1920 is shown in exhibit 1. EXHIBIT 1.-Rel.ative ability of the States to finance education, 19140-34 [Based on index of weighted economic resources per unit of educational need. Ability of United States equals 100. Taken from Norton, John K., and Norton, Margaret A., "Wealth, Children and Education," pp. 40-41] Average, Geographic.Division 1920 1928 1934 1920-34 United States ··----------------­-------------­----­---­ 100 100 100 100 New England ···­---------------­·----­-·­--­----­-----­ 129 126 137 131 Middle Atlantic ---­-----------­---------­ 146 150 156 151 East North Central -----­--------­--------------­ 111 107 97 107 West North Central ----------­---­---------­-·-·­­ 96 95 90 95 South Atlantic ·······--­-----­----------­­ 62 59 64 61 East South Central ·­·-­--­---------------­--····---­ 47 46 47 46 West South Central ------------­--- -- 78 78 77 74 Mountain ---····----------­------­-----­--·-·······­ 74 76 70 73 Pacific --------········---­----­--------­---­--------­········ 124 125 125 127 That the relative differences in the amount of support going to public elementary and secondary schools are fairly constant is shown in exhibit 2. It will be seen from that table that, although all States except North Dakota and Colorado have shown improvement from 1936 to 1938, the relative differences among the States have changed to an insignificant degree since 1932. The rich are still rich and the poor are still poor, and remain in about their same relative positions. Recent Conditions Arising Within recent months at least two conditions have arisen that give new impetus to the need for Federal aid to the States for public schools: (1) The influx of population into s.reas of defense activi­ties and industries, and (2) the requirement by recent Federal Court decisions that salaries of Negro teachers be equalized with salaries of white teachers for equal qualifications. The first of these situations has grown out of the necessities of our national-defense program and is clearly a Federal responsibility. The second of these situations is new only in .the sense that court · decisions interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­tion of the United States as affecting equal educational opportunities for Negroes have made necessary the rectification of a situation that has long needed attention and which was clearly pointed out in the report of the Advisory Committee on Education. It should be pointed out that since the matter of increased financial support for educational opportunities .for Negroes is now a constitu­tional matter so declared by the Federal courts, it becomes a matter llBased on weighted index of economic resources per unit of educational need. The University of Texas Publication ExamlT 2.-Cu.rrflftt ezpenditv.res per pupil '" average dGil11 atte"®nce, 1981-81, 1985-86, 1987-88 State New York Nevada California New Jersey Massachusetts Wyoming Delaware Montana Rhode Island Connecticut Colorado Minnesota Illinois South D~ota -­Washington New HampshireArizona Ohio Wisconsin PennsylTania MichiganOregonNorth Dakota __ Maryland ----------­ Iowa Idaho Indiana Utah Kansa8--·---------­ Vermont Nebraska New Mexico Missouri ·-··-···--------­ West Virginia Maine ------·_ Texas Florida Oklahoma Louisiana K~nt~~ V1rgm1a ·-·----------­Tennessee ---·---------­ South Carolina North Carolina --------­ Gi!orgia ---------·---­ Alabama ----------. Mississippi ---------­Arkansas ----------­ United States1 Per pupil in average daily Per child 5to17 years oId attendance 1931-32 1935-36 1937-38 $152.85 $134.13 $147.65 141.01 128.11 133.89 139.30 !15.60 131.43 141.19 108.33 125.53 108.91 104.51 109.81 115.90 101.62 105.91 103.21 100.38 104.64 102.62 96.29 104.12 109.30 95.03 98.49 110.50 90.76 104.47 115.17 87.20 87.41 98.20 86.16 91.92 103.66 86.06 108.77 97.48 85.70 90.90 98.64 85.88 108.88 97.99 84.68 92.18 110.39 83.10 94.16 94.27 82.42 86.28 88.11 80.87 90.89 91.18 79.70 92.82 108.04 78.82 89.81 81.08 77.83 87.88 89.63 75.46 74.85 86.10 '14.77 '18.98 91.00 78.02 81.15 81.64 69.20 '15.00 88.42 69.08 '17.01 68.90 67.07 74.86 80.99 67.04 72.84 78.80 65.55 77.'10 88.25 64.75 70.67 75.97 68.16 71.80 73.91 60.43 70.68 65.52 57.93 60.55 69.24 55.20 60.36 63.70 55.15 65.42 56.26 53.89 59.91 56.78 43.33 63.25 49.42 42.55 54.09 48.18 89.52 44.49 42.78 40.42 82.53 39.43 32.79 34.41 28.18 31.70 87.67 88.92 85.81 82.01 81.11 30.96 28.49 27.68 24.55 74.30 42.31 41.61 36.52 39.59 37.71 34.27 28.19 31.62 83.87 ' 1986-36 $95.08 109.87 97.07 '14.18 74.53 78.'11 68.60 69.28 58.50 62.12 61.88 60.'14 55.'10 55.90 65.48 62.45 58.41 58.86 55.18 54.58 56.10 59.40 46.69 46.18 54.25 55.18 68.65 52.94 50.89 44.82 48.15 44.99 41.52 42.11 41.13 85.57 41.58 30.89 26.84 25.86 26.29 24.15 19.80 22.09 20.41 18.61 20.13 15.81 51.77 1Jncludes District of Columbia. of Federal obligation to see that the constitutional requirements become effective. That obligation is clearly a financial one. Inasmuch as other witnesses will present the facts concerning these two situations, I shall not do so. I do, however, wish to say to the committee that I heartily approve of the provisions of S. 1313 respect­ ing these matters. Equalization of Educational Opportunities Among and Within the States The major part of my remarks will be addressed to the need for Federal financial assistance to the States for the equalization of educational opportunities as is proposed in S. 1313. For this pur­pose, the major findings of the Advisory Committee on Education will be presented. Findings of the Committee The outstanding conclusion presented in the report of the Com­mittee was that no plan of local or State taxation, even the best that can be devised, will support a decent minimum system of schools in many communities throughout the United States. In many thou­sands of school districts, the education that can be provided from State and focal resources is unquestionably below the minimum that is essential for the preservation of democratic institutions. Unless the Federal Government participates in the financial support of the schools and related services in the less able areas, several millions of the children of the United States will continue to be denied to a large extent the educational opportunities that should be regarded as their birthright. Although equality of opportunity is a fundamental tenet of our democracy, inequality of opportunity is at present the dominant char­acteristic of our educational system when viewed from the national standpoint. Several hundred thousand children of elementary school age are not enrolled in school at all, mainly because of a . lack of facilities in many scattered rural areas that are impoverished and isolated. In most communities elementary school service of some sort is available, but the quality of the service varies between the widest possible extremes. Hundreds of rural schools can be found which are the merest shacks, in which the children are huddled together at makeshift desks, using a small number of dirty and worn-out text­books, under the direction of teachers who have themselves hardly finished high school. On the other hand, in a limited number of wealthy communities we have public schools which would seem almost perfect to the average public school teacher, where the buildings are the finest specimens of modern architecture, where the teachers are well-trained, well-paid, and well-ied, where the children are given individual attention, and where everything is done to foster their physical and mental development. The first type of school mentioned is representative of several thou­sand of our rural schools, and the second is representative of several hundred of the better city schools. Furthermore, the facts show that there is a great gulf between the quality of the service now provided for children in the typical city school and that for children in the typical rural school. In the rural schools generally the teachers are poorly paid and are relatively untrained and inexperienced. School terms average a month shorter than those in cities, with attendance less regular even when school is in session. The instructional materials are meager, and teaching necessarily follows the textbooks in routine fashion. In the thousands of 1-room schools in the open country, children in the various grades compete for the attention of the teacher, and it is virtually impossible to provide the health, welfare, guidance, and other services which · children need in addition to instruction. These deficiencies are not due to any lack of interest in education on the part of the rural people. The rural areas make great effort in order to maintain their schools, but their educational load is too heavy for their low taxpaying ability. As indicated by the chart, exhibit 3, the proportion of children in the rural population is very much greater than that in the cities. EXHIBIT 3 Number of children 5-17 years of age per 1,000 adults 20-64 years of age, by size of community, 1930. 1'<0>111£• OF CRIU>REN PER 1,000 ADULTS 600 1,000 lt11nf.form Runl-nonfarm Small urban '2,S00-100,000 Lari!'! 1u:l11u1 lOOJIQO ·-­ WM l'fJ'f In 1930, there were 675 children 5 to 17 years of age per 1,000 white adults 20 to 64 years of age on farms, while there were only 348 such ehildren per 1,000 adults in cities of more than 100,000 population. The adults on farms thus carry an educational burden which is pro­portionately about twice as heavy as that of the adults in the large cities. Yet, the adults on farms are least able to support the burden of education under our present system of industrial and financial organization, with its large concentration of wealth and income in a few States containing large urban centers. Largely because of the fact that some regions contain proportion­ately more rural people than others, there are marked regional dif­ferences in the ratio of children to adults. These regional differences are shown graphically by exhibit 4. Similar statistics by States are given in the table which constitutes exhibit 5. EXHIBIT 4 Number of children 5-17 years of age per 1,000 adult.a 2~4 years of age, by regions, 1930 NOlllllEJl OF CHILDllE.'I PEii 1.000 Al>OLTS 800. 1,000 Southeast, 603; Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ken­tucky, Tennessee, Alabama, :Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Southwest, 637: Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Northwest, 496: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Middle States, 423: Ohio, Indiana, IDinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, :Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. Northeast, 420: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and District of Columbia. Far West, 336: Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California. Source: The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee, p. 26. In the rural Southeast in 1930, the farm population included 13 per cent of the Nation's children, but received only 2 per cent of the national income. In contrast, the nonfarm area of the Northeast, with only twice the child population of the farm area of the South­east, received 21 times as much income. The census of 1920 recorded 7,241,076 children and young people from 10 to 20 years of age who were then living on farms. As these children and young people grew older during the following 10 years, 40 per cent of them moved to towns or cities, where they were found during the census of 1930. About 60 per cent of the people of all ages who left the farm during the 10 years ending in 1930 came from farms located south of the Mason and Dixon line. In the United States today, 15,000,000 children of school age live in villages and on farms. Great numbers of these children are not getting their rightful share of educational opportunity. To escape the economic handicap often imposed by place of birth, many rural The Unive'l'sity of Texas Publication youth must seek their fortunes elsewhere. They depend on migration to the city as the way out. EXHIBIT 5 Nvm.ber of children. of elemefttarv-a.tu.I high...cl&ool u.gu P4W 1,000 adtclta, aged !D-6.J years, b11 Stat.a, 11101 80~Fi~~nth Census of the United States, 1930, Population, vols. II and ID, pts. 1 The rural birth rate has declined over a period of years, but the farm still produces a surplus of populatio:ti .above its needs. Dr. O. E. Baker of the Department of Agriculture reports the following data: Approximately 370 children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 15 to 45 are required to maintain the population even without popu­lation growth. In 1930, 7 cities, with over 100,000 population, com­posed largely of American stock, lacked about 40 per cent of having enough children to maintain their population without accessions from outside. All cities with over 100,000 population, taken as a whole, had a deficit of over 20 per cent, and the smaller cities (those from 2,500 to 100,000 population) had a deficit of about 8 per cent. On the other hand, the rural nonfarm population had a surplus of 30 per cent, and the rural farm population had a surplus of nearly 50 per cent. In 1930, there was an approximate balance between the , urban deficit and the rural surplus.• The conclusion is inescapable that we shall continue for many years to have a large amount of migration from farm to city. This con­tinued movement of youth in large numbers from farm to city, across State lines, and from region to region raises educational problems of the first magnitude. It is extremely significant that large numbers of youth who will constitute much of the future population of the United States are now being reared where educational opportunities are most inadequate. As a Nation, we have a common responsibility to each child: to make sure he is properly fitted for the work ahead. Each person's education is a matter of Nation-wide concern. The economic health of the Nation depends upon the economic health of all its parts. Education is a basic element in bringing about a satisfactory adjust­ment. The obligations to provide satisfactory educational facilities in the poorer areas is a national one. Such facilities cannot be pro­vided without action by the Federal Government. The Report of the Advisory Committee on Education has now been before Congress and the country for 3 years. It has been the subject of intensive discussion in many quarters. In all of that discussion, the major findings of the committee as to educational needs have stood virtually unchallenged. Such disagreement as has resulted from discussion of the committee report has been concerned almost entirely with details of the plans recommended by the committee to bring about improvement. Existing Financial Support for Public Education In 1936-36 expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools amounted to $1,939,400,000, of which local governments pro­vided $1,290,400,000, State governments provided $553,600,000, and the Federal Government provided $95,400,000, largely in the form of public-works grants for school buildings. 'O. E~ Baker, Relations of Population Trends to Commercial Agriculture •.. Novemer 29, 1935, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Eco­nomics (mimeographed) p. 3 and fig. 6. Preliminary reports of the United States Office of Education show that expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in 1937-38 were $2,223,045,404, divided among local, State, and Federal contributions about in the same proportion as in 1935-36. In the year 1935-36, public expenditures for education amounted to 14.4 per cent of all governmental expenditures in the United States! The ratios of educational to governmental expenditures were as follows for the respective levels of government: Per Cent Federal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 2.9 State ---------------------------------·--·--·-----------------------------------------------­ 29. 0 Local -------------·-·----------·'-­-------------------------------------------------­ 28.6 At the time when it was decided that schools should be supported at public expense, the property tax was the principal source of public revenue. Schools now receive an increasing amount of support from other types of taxes, but about three-quarters of the annual cost of public schools still is met through property taxes, levied chiefly by local school boards and other local taxing agencies. For 1935-36, the distribution of State and local support for public schools by types of taxes was as follows: Per Cent Property taxes-----------------------------------------------------------------------------73.1 General sales taxes______________________________________________________________ 7.O Selected sales taxes___________________________________________________________________ 4.4 Highway taxes___________________________________________________________________ 2.2 Business and miscellaneous taxes________________________________________________ 8.8 Personal taxes ----···-------------·-····-------------------------------------------------4.5 Total.______________________________________ .·---------------------·-------------------------100. 0 Similar data for each State separately are available in table 9, Federal Aid and the Tax Problem, Staff Study No. 4, The Advisory Committee on Education, page 41. The data are shown graphically for each State in exhibit 6. All but two States, Delaware and North Carolina, obtain more than half of their public school support from property taxes, as shown by the exhibit. No other great social service is dependent so largely upon so unsat­isfactory a type of tax as the property tax. Because of this situa­tion, the fortunes of education rise and fall with the ability and willingness of property owners to pay taxes. Most of the 127 ,000 local school districts raise their taxes sepa­rately. The larger the number of districts and the smaller their average size, the less likely is any reasonable relationship between 'The Advisory Committee on Education, Staff Study No. 4, Federal Aid and the Tax Problem, p. 26. amount of wealth and number of children. In several States, the richest districts with the same effort could provide $100 or more per ehild for every $1 provided by the poorest districts. Actual expenditures do not vary as much because of the equaliza­tion funds supplied by the State governments and because the poorest districts tax themselves much more heavily than the richest districts. Even so, in a number of States, expenditures per classroom are 12 to 15 times as high in some districts as in others. In many States, the variation in expenditures per classroom is about 6 to 1. In only a few States with large State school funds is the variation as little as 3 to 1. Inequality within States can be lessened through action by the State governments, but the States individually can do little to equalize opportunity among the States. It is therefore particularly important to compare opportunities in the various States. Expenditures for Public Schools in the Various States Expenditures per pupil and per child of school age are shown for the various states in the table designated as exhibit 2. The expendi­tures per pupil are shown in the form of a bar diagram in exhibit 7, while the map, exhibit 8, shows the regional distribution of differences in expenditures. As shown by these exhibits, the various States range between $24.55 and $134.13 in their expenditures per pupil in average daily attend­ance in 1935-36. In 1937-38 the ranges were from $28.19 to $147.65. Proportionately, the amount of variation is even greater in the ex­penditures per child of school age, which range from $15.81 to $109.87. (See column 4 of exhibit 2.) In 3 States in 1937-38, the amount spent per pupil was less than $35, while in 3 it was more than $131, or nearly four times as much. No less than 20 States were spending below $48 per child 5 to 17 years of age, the amount which has been fixed in some studies as necessary for a minimum defensible program of public education. The figures contained in the table are State-wide averages. Most of the States in which average expenditures exceed $48 per child include many communities in which expenditures are below that level. The amounts expended by the various States are not an entirely satisfactory measure of differences in educational opportunity, but they are undoubtedly the most important single statistical measure. In general, there is a very high relationship between the amount of money spent and the quality of the service provided. Many important factors in educational opportunity are closely related to the differences in average expenditures among the States. Some of the more significant of these factors are shown in exhibit 9, which compares expenditures with the average number of days that schools are in session, the percentage of pupils in the high-school ExHmIT 6 Percentage of public-school revenue from taxes and appropriations in the various states derived from property taxes, commodity taxes, and all other taxes, 1936-361 PERCENT 0 20 40 60 80 100 ~ t:riCani&M )(...11.m 'WtsiV"uginit Cllilonio ""­ f:oathCaroli.. 1-lorido """"'inct• llldupn ... .,, ,..... ;.~· ··~ ........~ ...·. . 226 for technical footnotes. States. Almost without exception, the States of low expenditures are also the States of low financial ability. Exhibit 14 permits a direct comparison of actual expenditures and financial ability for each State. As indicated by this chart, only 3 of the 33 States of less than average financial ability are spending 124 The University of Texas Publication less than the amounts the estimates indicate as feasible; the other 30 were in most cases spending considerably more than might be expected. On the other hand, of the 16 most wealthy States, which also average large in size although they include some small States, the States of California, Wyoming, Montana, Ohio, and Illinois were the only ones found to be spending more than could be expected with 0 ... ~ 'ti ~ f QI > Ill QI"ti Ill £ a .s:: t) 81 lC ........ -CD QI ..... bO ' ..... .... ~ 0 t) ~t a1al QIJ.I ~:-E f:::..-t~ el 0 al =.... &l I< lC Joo f;i;l"tl"tl :a:a t)tl .s:: .a tl•" :!~ ..... 0 t) ::s §al ~ t) ::s "ti QI QI .s Joo ~ .!! ~ al > Ill "' 0 GI i) 0 ..,0 .. .. ::s .. s:: 0 z g g 0 QI .. .. > 0 0 0 .., 0 41 ~ .. ;;. 0~~11 p:; ~ ~ { ~ ~ 0 ~ 'M 0 ! ~ 0 i i .g l'z1 g 1 0 ~ .:s > "ti < QI .Cl E-t QI t) Joo ~ ExBmIT 14 Current expenditure per child of school age, 1935-36, and estimated revenue available for the education of each child if each State made average effort, 1935 OoUAH .,. CHILO 5·1? YlAU or Au 0 150 ,, 100 ,,........ ...... ic.wYu<\ Colifoniia N••Jent7 N-i.-11 c....-1;."' ~ .............." \\"'°"''"' ....,...... ........... ()lue lll1110ltt N-.ui Pl'u•.)h·an&a Jet• Ham1lll1ire .... ""­ Ni-• "......."'.. M1n the Federal Government. A STATEMENT IN ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS TO S. 1313 By Howard A. Dawson, Director of Rural Service, National Education Association (From Hearings on S. 1313, 1941, p. 344ff.) The primary objection to S. 1313, or in fact to any bill to provide Federal aid for education, offered by its opponents is that it will result in undesirable control of the public schools. This is an ancient and outworn argument. Those who make it choose to ignore years -of experience in Federal and State relationships in the support of public education. Since 1802 the Federal Government has made <:ontributions to the States for public education, in the early days through grants of public lands. No one has ever argued that Federal control resulted from these grants. It is sometimes charged that because of lack of Federal control much of the public lands and the proceeds from their sale were wasted or lost. That is true, but three things should be remembered in this connection: (1) Most of the losses occurred in connection with the War between the States and in the period of reconstruction following the war; (2) the sale of public lands at low prices was a part of a national policy and public practice to get settlers on the land and to develop the country; and (3) the matter of accounting for money grants for a specific purpose is a much simpler problem than accounting for land grants that were to be converted into money. Example of Land-Grant Colleges Since 1862 the land-grant colleges have received Federal grants. There are now 69 of these institutions, and about 20 per cent of their total income is from appropriations by the Federal Government. Here is a perfect demonstration that the Federal Government can aid education without controlling the curriculum, methods of teaching, or the personnel of the institutions aided. Since 1917 the Federal Government has granted money to the States for vocational education. No serious charge of Federal domination has ever been sustained in the administration of the vocational­education programs. The fact that Congress has frequently, with but very ineffective opposition, from time to time increased the appro­priations for this purpose is evidence that there is general popular approval of the grants and no feeling of Federal domination of which the opponents of the pending bill seem to be so greatly afraic{. The control of education is a matter of policy. It does not, as it has not in the past, necessarily follow that. control must follow the dollar. Those who say that it does, overlook the influence of things much deeper in American life than the mere appropriation of money or the setting up of administrative machinery. Local control and local initiative are a part of the spirit of the American people. If economic and social pressures in the Nation become such that sub­stantial numbers of persons are willing to surrender freedom and local initiative in order to gain security and what they believe to be opportunity for economic and social improvement it won't make any difference whether the Federal Government is spending money for education or not. If national control of education should seem to be · a means of obtaining the objectives of social and economic justice, education would become subject to Federal domination regardless of who would be paying the bills. If millions of persons continue to be denied educational opportunity the result is .much more likely to be destruction of the very system of local initiative and respon­sibility that has resulted in the denial of opportunity than would the furnishing of financial resources from the central government neces­sary to the maintenance of freedom and local autonomy. The real advocates of Federal control of education are those who are unwilling to see the financial resources made available necessary to the estab­lishment and maintenance of strong local units with resources neces­sary to the maintenance of freedom and opportunity. Preserves Local and State Control Those who attack S. 1313 on the ground of Federal control of education fail to comprehend the full import of section 2 of the bill. Could language more clearly set forth the express requirement of preserving State and local control of education? "The provisions of this Act shall be so construed as to maintain local and State initiative and responsibility in the conduct of educa­tion and to reserve explicitly to the States and their local subdi­visions the organization and administration of schools, the control over the processes of education, the control and determination of curricula of the schools, the methods of instruction to be employed in them, and the selection of personnel employed by the State and its agency and local school jurisdictions." Equalization of Educational Opportunity 191 The provision of section 13 (b) has been objected to by opponents of S. 1313. This provision is as follows: "No political or civil rights or activities of a'ny teacher or school administrator shall be restricted or affected in any way because of any financial benefit accruing to such teacher or administrator from funds appropriated pursuant to this Act." The real purpose of this provision is to avoid Federal control of teaching personnel and school administrators who may be the bene­ficiaries of Federal appropriations under this bill. The opponents of S. 1313 ought to get on one side of the argument or the other. They can't object to Federal control and advocate it at the same time. Mr. Hart, one of the opponents of S. 1313, objected to this provision on the ground that it would take control of teachers out of the hands of local boards of education. He said, for example, that the local boards of education could not, under the provisions of Section 13 (b), discipline a teacher who advocates communism. That contention is the height of absurdity. The requirement of section 13 (b) is that the political or civil rights or activities of teachers shall not be restricted or affected because of any funds received through this Act. The States and local boards of education will have the same control over teachers and school administrators they now have, not one whit less, should S. 1313 become law. Parochial Schools It is charged by some of the opponents of S. 1313 that the bill will result in Federal aid for private schools. On the other hand the Administrative Committee of Bishops of the National Catholic Wel­fare Conference objects to S. 1313 on the ground that it does not make it possible for private schools to benefit from funds that would be appropriated under its authorization. Certainly both of these opponents can't be right. As a matter of fact, in the bill the word "school" is always accom­panied by the word "public." "Public" when used in connection with "school" has frequently been interpreted to mean schools that are free, open equally to all, and under complete public control. (Auditor v. The University of Michigan, 83 Mich. 467; also 47 N. W. 440 and 1 L. R. D. 376; and St. Joseph's Church v. Providence Tax: Association, 12 R. I. Rept. 19; and 34 Am. Repts. 597.) The term "public school" as generally used is not limited to schools of the lowest grades but may include high schools as well, and normal schools also in a large sense are public schools. The fact that a tuition fee is charged will not, ipso facto, take a school out of the class of a public school, but a school controlled by an incorporated board of trustees is not a public school, nor is a school kept by a The University of Texas Publication society or open only to poor or orphaned children, although con­trolled by a city. (See People v. Christy, 45 Hun., N. Y. 19; Efoke v. Maye1·, 19 Q. B. D. 79; LeConteulx v. Buffalo, 33 N. Y. 333; Richter v. Cordes, 100 Mich. 278, 58 N. W. 1110; Merrick v. ArnJuwst, 12 Allen 508; Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush, Ky. 74.) The subject of Federal aid for private or parochial schools is not involved in S. 1313 and has no place in it. The Congress, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, has no right to deal specifi­cally with local schools, public or private. It can deal only with the States. It can appropriate money to the States to promote the gen­eral welfare. The administration of education, an agency essential to the general welfare, is a State function. It is highly doubtful under the prohibition of the First Amendment to the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of re­ligion") that the Congress has any right to undertake to make Federal moneys available for the support of church-controlled schools. Any attempt to authorize a State to do so would be a clear attempt to do by indirection what cannot be done by direct appropriation which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution. The Congress has no constitutional right to comply with the request of the National Catholic Welfare Conference to make funds available for the support of parochial schools. On the other hand Maj. Gen. Amos A. Fries and his so-called Friends of the Public Schools have no grounds whatever for attempting to use the Senate Committee on Education and Labor as a forum for raising an emotional dis­turbance over the long-settled issue of the separation of Church and State. The issue of public money for privately controlled schools has arisen because some States furnish the use of State-owned textbooks to children attending parochial schools and because in some States school boards are permitted to transport in publicly owned vehicles children attending parochial schools. The textbook matter was set­tled by the Supreme Court of the United .States in the case of Cockran v. Louisia1u1, State Board of Educati.on (281 U. S. 370, 74 L. Ed. 913), in which it was held by a unanimous opinion that the distribution of free textbooks to children attending private or sectarian schools was constitutional since the child and not the school was the beneficiary. Recently the people of New York amended their State Constitution to permit local boards of education to transport children attending private schools (N. Y. Constitution, article XI, sec. 4, Approved, Nov. 8, 1938). A Maryland statute to permit county boards of edu­cation to transport children to private schools has been upheld by the Maryland State Court of Appeals (May 20, 1938). These are clearly matters within the prerogatives of the States and are not subject to regulation by the Congress. If the States want to spend their own funds for such purposes that is their own business. Furthermore, let it be said there is a vast amount of difference between lending a textbook to a child attending a parochial school, or permitting him to ride in a publicly owned or publicly operated school bus and in granting funds to a church or to a board of a private school for buildings or teachers' salaries. Not a New Deal Spending Bill The charge has been made by one of the opponents of S. 1313 (Mr. Robnett) that this is a New Deal spending bill. Perhaps the sim­plest answer to that charge is that if it, or a similar bill, had been a New Deal measure it would long ago have been enacted into law. As a matter of fact no Federal-aid-for-education measure has, since 1933, had the active support of the President or any member of his Cabinet. The proponents of the measure could well wish that the charge of this gentleman were true. The gentleman insisted under questioning by the chairman that the proposal for Federal aid for education had its inception since 1933. Just how far wrong he is can be seen from the following recital of historical facts quoted from Federal Support for Education, a re­search bulletin of the National Education Association, September, 1937: "Between 1781 and 1802 the thirteen original States ceded to the Federal Government their claims to the land between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi River. In 1783 Col. Timothy Pickering, in a proposal for settling soldiers of the Revolution in a part of the pres­ent State of Ohio, suggested that surplus western lands should be disposed for the common good including the establishing of schools and academies. The Ordinance of 1785, ordering the rectangle sys­tem of survey of public lands, provided that 'lot No. 16 of every township' should be reserved for the maintenance of public schools. The Ordinance of 1787 stated that 'schools and the means of educa­tion shall forever be encouraged' in the States to be developed from the western territory. In the same year the Ohio Co. purchased land on the Ohio River with the understanding that section 16 should be reserved for schools. Similar terms were made in the sale of Ohio land to John C. Symmes in 1788. In these laws and grants of Congress we have the beginnings of a national land-grant policy for the promotion of education. "The earlier policy was definitely established and extended in the admission of States carved from the western lands.1 In the admis­sion of Ohio in 1802 the sixteenth section of land in each township was granted for schools, on the condition that the State should exempt from taxation for five years all public lands sold by Congress. Similar bargains were made in the admission of Tennessee, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois and Alabama. With the exception of Maine, Texas, and West Virginia, all States admitted after the establish­ment of this land policy received grants for s.chools. Most of the States west of the Mississippi River received two and sometimes four sections in every township. In most of the States, also, similar grants were made for college and university purposes. By the Mor­rill Act of 1862 additional grants for colleges of agricultural and mechanical arts were made not only to the Western States in the form of land, but to the Southern and Eastern States in the form of land scrip. Taken together, the Federal land specifically granted for common schools constituted an area larger than Italy, over twice as large as England and Wales, and twenty-five times the size of Connecticut.1 Various Federal Aid Measures "After the Civil War there were several proposals that Federal aid to the States for education should take the form of money grants. The Hoar Bill of 1870 provided that proceeds from the sale of public lands should be distributed in proportion to illiteracy in each State. This bill was never enacted into law. The three Blair bills (between 1884 and 1887), also providing for the distribution of funds to the States on the basis of illiteracy, passed the Senate but ~ere never approved by the House. "In 1887, by the passing of the Hatch Act, Congress appropriated $15,000 a year to each of the land-grant colleges for agricultural experimental stations. Later the basic amount was increased and provision was made for annual increases. By the so-called Second Morrill Act of 1890 Congress granted additional money to the land­grant colleges. Beginning at $15,000 per year for each college, the law has been amended to provide for grants up to a maximum of $50,000 per year. The Ha~h Act and the Second Morrill Act to­gether make it possible for each State to receive $140,000 each year in direct aid for higher education. "In 1914 the Smith-Lever Act provided national aid to the States for the diffusion of information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics. In 1924-25 the total Federal grants under this 1Cuhberley, Ellwood P., State School Administration, Boston: Houghton Miffiin Co., 1927. Pp. 15-76. 2See table V in F. H. Swift's Federal and State Policies in Public School Finance in the United States, Boston : Ginn and Co., 1931. P. 26. Equalization of Educational Opportunity 195 act amounted to nearly six million dollars. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 provided Federal aid for vocational education. The States must appropriate a sum equa1 to the Federal grant. In August, 1937, a supplementary law was enacted, providing $14,000,000 of Federal funds to meet the provisions of this bill and subsequent legislation. "In addition to the foregoing provisions for Federal aid to educa­tion, there have been other less well-known grants of assistance. These include gifts of saline and swamp lands, grants from the sale of public lands, the distribution of surplus revenue from the Federal Treasury, the gifts of pubUc lands for internal improvements, and various enabling acts upon the admission of Territories to statehood. Since the World War, there have been large Federal appropriations for the vocational reeducation both of veterans and of persons dis­abled in industry. Federal assistance in the form of money grants has been given during the recent depression years to help closed schools, to provide nursery and adult education, to constr~ct school buildings, and to carry out the programs of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration. "As early as J ·,o9 the National Teachers' Association, a forerunner of the present National Educational Association, became interested in the establi~hment of a national university. A bill was introduced in 1873, providing that the Federal Government should pay the proposed university 5 per cent on an endowment of $20,000,000. Congress took no action on this measure or on similar proposals which have been introduced from time to time. The idea, however, is discussed from year to year by members of the association who believe that the proposition has considerable merit. "A committee of the association proposed in 1919 that there be established a Department of Education with a Secretary in the President's Cabinet and that $100,000,000 a year be granted to the States for the improvement of schools. In essentially the same form (Smith-Towner, 1919; Sterling-Towner, 1921; Sterling-Reed, 1923) the bill was reintroduced into Congress. Without the provision for Federal aid, a similar bill was unsuccessfully advocated in 1925." S. 1313 has been objected to on the ground that it is an attempt to obtain Federal aid for education under the sound name of national defense. There is no subterfuge or camouflage in S. 1313. Its pur­poses are plainly stated, and to take care of public school needs in defense areas is one of the purposes stated. Certainly no one can deny the need for such aid. If the urgency of the situation puts the opponents of S. 1313 in an embarrassing position there is nothing the proponents should or could do about it. The proponents didn't create the dilemmas of the national defense program. The provision for educational needs in defense areas belongs in S. 1313. The only proper way for the Federal Government to deal The University of Texas Publication with public schools is through the States, not with local boards of education as is proposed 'in some of the housing bills pending before the Congress. Objections Answered One of the opponents of S. 1313 (Mr. Hart) cites section 4 (b) (4) as an attempt to set up a plan of taxation in each State. Such a statement is absurd and Mr. Hart himself is bound to know it. There isn't one word in S. 1313 that gives anybody any authority to tell the States what taxes they should levy. The board of apportionment has to do three things: (1) determine statistically the educational burdens of the respective States; (2) estimate the :financial ability of the respective States to bear those burdens; and (3) determine on the basis of burdens and abilities the need for funds. What Mr. Hart fails, or refuses, to see is that the :financial ability of the respec­tive States is to be estimated on the basis of the amount of revenue the respective States could raise from a uniform tax plan if applied to all the States. This is nothing more than a means of getting an index of financial ability. Mr. Hart also objects to section 6 (b) which provided that in the preceding year for which an apportionment is made a State in order to qualify for receiving funds shall "have provided from State revenues for all public elementary and secondary school purposes a total not less than the total amount spent for such purposes in the fiscal year ended in 1940." He says that that provision would result in perpetuating expenditures where they are not needed. Mr. Hart is wrong on two counts: (1) this is an equalization bill and it is scarcely probable that the places he is worrying about would receive any of the funds; and (2) the limitation complained of applies on]y to States, not to communities. If a local school district had more money than it needed the property owners about whom Mr. Hart is so tenderly solicitous could get relief. The plain truth is that it is hardly conceivable that such communities would ever receive funds under this bill. The sole purpose of section 6 (b) is to safeguard against a State's reducing its own effort to support schools because it receives Federal funds. The purpose of this bill is to provide money for improvement of the public school program, not to give tax relief. In the course of the discussion the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Ball, raised a very important point and one which deserves careful consideration. He stated that in many rural areas there is need for the consolidation of schools and of school districts. He raised the question as to whether the furnishing of additional funds might not tend to freeze the undesirable situations. It should be noted in the first instance that the pending bill is designed to bring up the low spots in education. Section 7 provides that the funds shall be available for disbursement by the State to local school jurisdiction, or other State educational agencies, in order effectively to reduce inequalities of educational opportunities. For the most part the very areas in greatest need of school reorganiza­tion are the areas with the greatest need of financial assistance. In these areas school consolidation is not possible because there is not sufficient financial resources to pay the additional costs. Thus the funds that would come from this bill are necessary to finance the needed school consolidations and reorganizations. Section 7 also provides that States may disburse the funds received to local school jurisdictions for such school buildings as the State educational authority finds to be in the interest of greater efficiency and economy. This provision is based precisely on the idea that funds will be needed for financing desirable consolidation of schools. The decision in these.matters must of necessity be left to the State authorities, for the whole theory back of this bill is the preservation of State control of education. As to whether State or Federal funds will tend to perpetuate un­desirable local school organizations depends in large measure upon the plan of apportionment used by the States. It is the clear inten­tion of this bill that funds shall be used, among other things, to finance desirable school reorganization. One fundamental principle that should be followed in the apportionment of State funds to local school jurisdictions is that the State should encourage the efficient ol'ganization of schools and avoid placing a premium on the status quo. This, however, is a State and not a Federal function. After all, the virtues of democratic government are not obliterated by its inefficiencies. There are some things worse than the inefficiency, or even the expensiveness, of democracy. One other comment should be made. General Fries attempted to argue that the use of "school jurisdiction" as a term in section 7 would leave the States free to appropriate funds to private schools. He thinks that "school jurisdiction" could be interpreted to mean a parochial school. A reading of section 7 (a) shows the absurdity of that contention. The expression used is "to local school jurisdic­ tions or other State education agencies" clearly implying that "local school jurisdiction" is a State agency, as of course it is, and every person who knows anything about school law knows that it is. A parochial school by no stretch of the imagination can mean a "State educational agency." Furthermore, section 7 (a) makes the money available to local school jurisdictions "for all types of expense of public elementary and secondary schools." No court in the land has ever held that a parochial school is a public school in a legal sense. THE INEQUALITIES OF EDUCATIONAL OPPOR· TUNITY IN THE UNITED ST A TES By Jack R. Morton~ Professor of Adult Education, State College, Mississippi Under our democratic system of government equality of oppor­tunity for all is considered to be a fundamental attribute. Because of changes and shifts in the wealth of our Nation from one area to another and from one group of society to another, it is evident that educational opportunities approaching adequacy are now to be found only in limited areas where circumstances and conditions are unusually favorable. It is recognized that educational improvement is needed even in the most favored areas; hut from the national point of view, it is far more important that the great inequalities in educa­tional opportunity in the least favored States and areas be given serious thought and attention. Objections Not Valid Many of us regard the possibility of Federal aid to education with a great deal of apprehension. In America we are great believers in the preservation of community independence and, although our economic system has virtually destroyed the possibility of economic independence for communities, we still believe it necessary to main­tain as high a degree of community freedom as possible. In no other way can the search for truth, underwritten by our constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and inquiry, go on effectively. We believe also that if our democracy is to function each of its people and its communities must accept as many responsibilities as possible and learn how to discharge them effectively, for otherwise we cannot continue to develop a free people capable of independent action. It also seems obvious that the American educational system is poten­tially a great propaganda agency; the governments of all the totali­tarian states have used their educational systems for these ends. We believe this is an additional reason why it would be extremely dangerous to place the responsibility for education in America in any single central office. Such centralization would create an organ­ization which might be taken over very easily by ambitious persons or groups desiring to indoctrinate the people with any set of specific beliefs or official truths. Even though the dangers indicated above do exist, the fact remains that if there is to be any equality of educational opportunity in the United States, it must be provided and maintained at a level far above that which some of the individual communities and States can provide with the financial resources now at their disposal. Thus, the question becomes: Can a system of Federal aid to education be provided and administered in such a way as to insure not only a reasonable equality of opportunity but also a reasonable amount of local and State freedom and independence of action? It seems prob­able that a program for administering Federal aid to education within these limitations can be established and maintained. Rela­tions of the Federal Government to the land-grant colleges now maintained by the States represent evidence in support of this conclusion. Plan It is my opm1on that any program of Federal aid to education must provide: 1. That the States be required to maintain in every community a program of education which shall include minimum essentials as measured by the actual school programs now financed by American communities of average wealth. 2. That the States be required to maintain a standard of teache~ tr~ining comparable to the training of teachers now employed in communities of average wealth. 3. That the Federal Government be required to distribute educa­tional fund3 to the States on a definite formula, written into the law, providing for the allocation of money according to need. Educational need varies with number of pupils after the financial resources now available in the States have been deducted. 4. That the Federal Government shall have no power to veto any plans of States or local communities as long as an educational program meeting the minimum essentials described above is maintained. 5. That the Federal Government shall have the authority to audit the expenditure of all Federal funds spent for education and to enforce their expenditure for educational purposes. Within the conditions catalogued above it seems to me that Federal aid to education is an essential and constructive move aimed to im­prove and to perpetuate American democracy, and for these reasons and under these conditions I recommend an extensive and adequate program of Federal aid to education. Federal aid for public school education should be allocated in pro­portion . to the needs, based on number of children of school age in each State, and the requirement's above the State's ability to provide through its own resources a minimum standard of public education. This is the only fair and equitable system of allocation of funds if the inequalities are to be eliminated. A system of allocating funds on the basis of "matching funds" by the State would not solve the problem. The complete solution of the problem is necessarily based on providing funds for educating children where they are in accord­ance with the needs of the States, in order to equalize educational opportunities. The only system that will do this effectively is that of allocating the funds in proportion to State needs as outlined above. A TEXAN LOOKS AT FEDERAL AID By L. D. Stokes, Director, Research Department, Texas State Teachers Association Little argument may be advanced against the· actual need for Fed­eral aid to equalize educational opportunities of the children of the Nation. Only very wealthy States could turn a deaf ear to such a proposal, and it is a problem to keep the poorer States from accepting any type of bill in order to secure such aid. Facts and Figures Inequalities in educational opportunities are almost as great among the forty-eight States as within individual States; School terms in Texas range from less than ninety days to more than 170 days, while school terms in the Nation range from an average of six and one-half months in the lowest State to nine and one-half months in the highest State. The annual current expenditure per pupil in average daily attend­ ance in Texas is ten times as great in some districts as in others, while for the Nation as a whole the expenditure ranges from an average of approximately $30.00 in one State to more than $140.00 in another State. The average for the Nation is $83.87. The average annual salary of teachers in Texas is $1,127, while for the Nation as a whole the average salary range of teachers is from less than $500 in the lowest State to more than $2,300 in the highest State. The average for the Nation is $1,374. In Texas approximately 25 per cent of the total enrollment is in the high-school grades. For the Nation as a whole the range is from less than 14 per cent in the lowest State to more than 30 per cent in the highest State. There are many other evidences of inequalities in educational oppor­ tunities that could be mentioned, but these will suffice to show the need of some type of Federal aid. Dr. Newton Edwards in a study made for the National Advisory Committee on Education in 19391 directed attention to the striking differences in the various States in income per child of school age. In three States in 1930 the income was less than $1,000; in eleven States it was less than $1,500; in sixteen States it :was more than IEqual Educational Opportunity for Youth A National Responsibility. Newton Edwards, American Council on Education. Washington, D. C., 1939. Equalization of Educational Opportunity 201 $3,000; in seven States it was in excess of $4,000; and in three States it was more than $5,000. John K. Norton and Margaret A. Norton, in a recent study2 based on wealth, income, and number of children aged 5 to 17, found that the relative ability of the States to support an educational program ranged from .35 in Mississippi to 2.10 in Nevada, with the United States taken as 1.00. In other words, the ability of one State to support a system of public schools was approximately six times as great as the ability of another State. When revenue which would have been available from a modern tax system and the number of children aged 5 to 17 were used as a ,basis, it was found that the relative ability of the States ranged from .30 in Mississippi to 2.72 in Nevada when the United States was used as 1.00. Seven States had less than half as much financial ability as the United States as a whole, while eight States had from 40 to 142 per cent more ability than the Nation as a whole. Some of the States ranking highest in ability were among the lowest ranking in effort. Mississippi, ranking lowest in ability, ranked 6.5 in effort while Nevada, ranking first in ability, ranked forty-eighth in effort. As a whole it was found that the poorer States "make somewhat greater effort to provide funds for the sup­ port of public education than do the richer States." Every study made concerning the ability of the States to support an adequate program of education has resulted in like findings. Dr. Howard A. Dawson, director of rural service of the National Education Association, appearing before a Senate subcommittee in support of the Educational Finance Act of 1941, made the following statement: "The amounts of taxes per capita which can be raised ranges from $18.39 in Mississippi to $109.33 in Nevada. Assuming that each State would spend an average of $60 per year per weighted pupil for schools, it was found that 96.5 per cent of all tax resources in Mississippi would be required to.maintain schools, while in Nevada only 16.5 per cent of the tax resources would be required. Aid Without Control These facts and many others not cited here prove definitely that there is a real need for Federal aid to equalize educational opportu­ nities of children. Every State should put its own public school system in order but even when this is accomplished, there is no sane reason to advance for justifying the great inequalities that would exist among the States of the Union. It is an agreed principle of States that wealth should be taxed wherever it is found to educate the children wherever they are found. llWealth, Children and Education, Norton and Norton. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. New York, 1937. The University of Texas Publication Little reason can be advanced for not applying the same principle to the Nation as a whole. The real danger of accepting Federal aid seems to be that of having Federal control where the Government might possibly abuse its privi­leges through using the schools for purposes of indoctrination and subversion. While it is granted that decentralization is a most cer­tai~ method of guarding against indoctrination, it is believed that the States may be able to secure such aid without releasing control. As long as a decentralized system is continued, the schools can never be used successfully for Nation-wide propaganda purposes. Another argument advanced is that with the acceptance of Federal subsidy local interest wanes as eventually does local financial support. Unless local control is maintained, there is complete justification for this statement. From the very beginning public education in the United States has been recognized as the rightful province of the States. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, provided "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." No mention of education is made in the Consti­tution of the United States, and therefore education remains the rightful province of the States. Bills providing for Federal funds for public education should not force aid upon any State but the prerogative should remain with the citizens of the State to accept or reject such aid, and the law should allow States to reject the aid during any year after said aid has been received if the Federal Government attempts to exercise undesir­able control. Such bills should be worded so that no Federal control may be exercised over the public free school personnel and so that local boards of trustees and superintendents may continue desirable supervisory and administrative powers over their schools. Only through Federal aid may we overcome the wide disparities in supporting adequate public free schools for all of the boys and girls of the Nation. If the States can justify programs within their own borders which attempt to equalize educational opportunities, certainly the States, united, can justify no less a program within the Union. NEGATIVE READING MATERIAL WHY I OPPOSE S. 1305 By Senator Robert A. Taft, of Ohio (From Seventy-Sixth Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 244, Part 2, April 24, 1939, to Accompany S. 1305.) The undersigned is opposed to this bill (S. 1305) which is en­titled "A bill to promote the general welfare through appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in providing more effec­tive programs of public education." I feel impelled to file this minority report because the bill proposes that the Federal Govern­ment depart from a basic policy pursued since 1789. Enormous Appropriations The bill authorizes appropriations beginning at $75,000,000 in the year 1940, and rising to more than $200,000,000 in the fiscal year 1945. It is fair, therefore, to refer to this as a $200,000,000 pro­gram, and since the total cost of education in the United States is about $2,000,000,000, we may look forward to an increase in this Federal aid to at least $500,000,000 if the principle is once admitted. This money is to be used for a number of purposes, but funda­mentally to assist in financing primary education conducted under State laws. It includes all kinds of aid programs, as shown in the table attached hereto, but the largest sums are for direct assistance to elementary and secondary education, including nursery schools and kindergartens. It also provides for $6,000,000 a year to enable States to conduct normal schools for teachers. It also provides for $30,000,000 a year to enable States to build more schoolhouses. The bill actually provides for direct assistance to States to enable them to carry on their State Departments of Education. It also provides for Federal aid to assist the States in making adequate provision for adult educational services, to cost the Federal Government $15,000,000. It also provides for $6,000,000 a year for grants to States for rural library service. It also provides for another $5,000,000 to enable States to set up cooperative educational research and demonstration projects. In short, it is proposed that the Federal Government under­take to nurse along all the State educational activities which educa­tional authorities in the Nation today think may be desirable, includ­ing those unnecessary luxuries known as cooperative educational research and demonstration projects. Of course the Federal Government in recent years has assumed many functions formerly considered to be matters only of State and local responsibility. In some cases this has been justified because The University of Texas Publication the activities were interstate in nature, and affected directly the relations between the States. On such a ground are Federal appro­priations for road building justified. The interstate character of the movement of basic agricultural products may also justify the great payments made in an effort to control the interstate price of these products. In several other fields Federal intervention has been justified because of the limited ability of the States to reach the sources of taxation. The States find difficulty in taxing wealthy people and large busi­ness enterprises because if they tax more heavily than other States, the very people they attempt to reach will move away, and industry will tend to avoid their States. The sources of State taxation, par­ticularly the real-estate tax, had already been pushed to high levels, and were devoted principally to the support of the ordinary functions of local government, namely, schools, roads, and city administration. Therefore, when a great new field of activity was inaugurated, as in the case of relief and social security, it was found necessary to have these new activities financed by the Federal Government. But education is not a new activity. It has been conducted for a hundred years by local government. The people of each district have largely controlled their schools. They take more interest in schools than any other form of local or National Government. They are jealous of centralization even when that centralization is based on a township system. In general education has been well handled. It has been generously treated, as shown by the total of $2,000,000,000 a year spent on education by States and local governments. The people have been willing to vote extra levies for schools when they would vote extra levies for no other government expense. Of course the entire system is not perfect. There are places where it could have been better done. But that is the essence of local self­government, that some people govern themselves better than others do, and our experience with Federal control does not indicate that under Federal administration or subsidy everything will be done with heavenly perfection. If there is any activity in which the people are able to stand on their own feet, without being nursed from Washing­ton, education is that activity. Can't Raise Money There is another reason why this activity should not be undertaken at the present time. The Federal Government has undertaken many new activities within the past six years. The idealism which prompted them and the underlying purpose of many of them have been praiseworthy. However, the administration of many of them has not been given the same serious consideration, and many agencies and bureaus have been created which are not yet assimilated into our Government structure. It seems unwise to take on another tremen­dous administrative task before we have digested that which we have already bitten off. The institution of these new agencies of govern­ment has involved tremendous expense, and the prospective deficit for the current fiscal year is very close to $4,000,000,000.-Certainly until the bu.dget is balanced, it is unwise to take on another source of permanent and almost unlimited expense. The reason given for Federal entrance into the educational field is that the States are unable to provide the money required for what educational authorities think is desirable and cannot devise a tax system to do so. But what evidence have we that the Federal Gov­ernment can devise any tax system which will raise $9,000,000,000 a year and enough more to give aid to education? The authors of the bill are blithely proposing to pay these subsidies out of increased deficts. If the proponents of the bill wish to sell the American people a bill of educational goods, they should at least show them where they are going to get the money to pay for it. To borrow for a current emergency may be justifiable, but to borrow for a continuing annual expense can only lead to bankruptcy or repudiation. In my opinion, the bill also threatens to transfer control of the educational system to the Federal Government. It contains in the preamble a pious declaration that it shall be so construed as to main­ tain local and State initiative and responsibility, and to reserve to the States the administration of schools, and control over the processes of education and methods of instruction. Similar declarations are scattered through the act. But experience has shown that when a Federal bureau distributes money, it has necessarily a considerable control, direct and indirect, over the manner in which those receiving aid shall conduct their activities. In paragraph (c) of seetion 12, for instance, the kind of health, welfare, and recreational activities for which Federal funds may be used is such that the Federal bureau can practically say what they shall be. Under section 32, while the requirement is that each State shall establish standards for the loca­ tion and construction of school buildings, the Federal bureau as going to determine whether they really have established standards that the Federal bureau regards as standards. In section 51, the Federal Government is telling each State that it must have a State educational authority to represent the State in dealings with the· Commissioner of Education. The bureau is going to determine in each State whether its money . is properly distributed between schools for the white race and schools for the colored race. The Commis­ sioner of Education is going to determine whether the State has provided "by law a system for the appointment and tenure of per­ sonnel in the State Department of Education upon the basis of merit and efficiency." There are many other provisions in the bill, such as those regarding adult education and rural library service, which show a clear intention on the part of the authors of the bill to tell each State how it shall run its educational system. It is too much to hope that any Federal Commissioner of Education dispensing $200,000,000 a year is going to let the people of each school district decide how they will run their schools. I believe that any such sys­tem of Federal aid is impossible to conduct without a complete domi• nation over State educational systems and local education. Threatens Individual Freedom Federal control of the educational field presents a threat to indi­vidual freedom. In no way more than through the schools have the totalitarian states of Europe spread the doctrines of communism and fascism. The man who can educate the children of the country can spread throughout this country any current "ism" which happens to be predominant in Washington. There is a considerable uniformity in education today in the United States produced by the intelligence and influence of leaders in the field of education. But anyone who disagrees can yo on disagreeing, and can try some other system if the people of his district have confidence in him. Certainly we can­not say that we have solved the problem of education. We have expensive school plants and elaborate courses and progressive ideas, ~mt whether the character and knowledge produced are substantially better than that received in the little red schoolhouse is at least subject to dispute. The method of distribution of funds provided in the bill is peculiar. I append to this report a table showing in column I the amount each State will receive the fin:t year under title I of the act, assuming an appropriation of $63,000,000 as authorized, with the percentage of distribution to each State shown in column II. Column III shows the population of each State according to the 1930 census, and column IV shows each State's percentage of the total population according to the 1930 census. It will be observed that 63.675 per cent of the dis­tribution goes to 12 Southern States. (The 12 States in question are designated on the table thus *.) The insignificance of the funds allotted to many States results from the fact that if a State has a percentage of the national financial ability, whatever that may be, equal to the percentage of child population, it receives no assistance whatever from the Federal fund except a minimum of 5 per cent of its index of educational load. The entire distribution is based on a formula set out in sections 13 and 14 of the act, which is very compli­cated and leaves a considerable discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine the basic portion of each State. In effect, the bill is a bill for the relief of the Southern States. There is one other feature of the distribution which I f ee.l should be mentioned. No provision is made for the 2,000,000 children educated Equalization of Educational Opportunity 207 in the parochial and private schools, although the State receives its share of the distribution of Federal money on the basis of all the inhabitants 5 to 19 years of age in the State. In summarizing my report, I feel that this bill should be rejected. First, because it threatens a Federal control over primary education; second, because it involves a tremendous additional obligation on the Appropriations Authorized under S. 1305 Per cent Distribu­tion under s. 1305 title 11 cf funds gomi:t to each State under s. '.;,o5, title I Pop.,.ta­t1on of States 1930 census Percentage of total population (based on col. III) II III IV *Alabama -------­-----­·-·--·-----­----­ $4,005,540 6.358 2,646,248 2.2 Arizona --------­····-­---­--·------­-•Arkansas -··­----··-·-·­·---­-·­--·­-­California --------···--···--·­··­Colorado ···---­------­---··-·-··--·--­Connecticut -··--­·-·----­--­ 246,960 2,768,770 301,140 l85,850 104,680 .392 4.379 .47S .'::~5 .166 507,847 1,854,482 5,677,251 225,565 1,606,903 -4 1.5 4.6 .2 1.3 Delaware ···----·-·-··-·----··­-·-·­District of Columbia ··-··---­Florida ·····-­-·­·-·-········­-­*Georgia -··---­-------···­·--·---····--­Idaho -·-·--­-·­·---­-·­-------·-­---·---­Illinois -·-·-·­-··-----·------·-­--­----··­··-· Indiana --------····­-----·--·--·-·-····--······ Iowa, ·-·­-·---···--·---·------···-·-·-·--­Kansas -·---­-·---·-·--·---------------­•Kentucky -------­-------­-·--­-·----·-­·­*Louisiana ·­···--·---­-·­-----·---­·-·----­Maine -------···--·­····­---·---·-·-·-·­Maryland ---------­--------···-··--·--· Massachusetts ----------··-·--·­-·-­ 16,380 21,420 452,970 3, ~18,430 ill2,480 463,680 1,566 180 !.•60,120 1.J 87,550 3 97,250 2,438,100 83 .160 l 10,250 241,920 .026 .034 .719 6.061 .496 .n6 2.486 J.•524 1.885 5.075 3.870 .132 .175 .384 238,380 486,869 1,468,211 2,908,506 445,032 7,630,654 3,238,503 2,470,939 1,880,999 2,614,589 2,101 ,593 797,423 1,631,526 4,249,614 .2 .4 1.2 2.4 .4 6.2 2.6 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.7 .6 1.8 3.5 Michigan -··---·----·-·-·--··­---·--­Minnesota ·-­-·-·------------···-·­-··-··· *Mississippi ···-­-·--·­·----·--·······---· tMissouri --------·--·---------···--··­--· 1,619,560 f\97 ,240 3,274,740 847,980 2.412 .948 5.198 1.346 4,842,325 2,563,953 2,009,821 3,629,367 3.9 2.1 1.6 3.0 tMontana ----------------­---·--·-·-·-·-·---·­tNebraska ·-------·­··-----·--------­--­ 178,920 672,840 .284 1.\168 537,606 1,377,963 .4 1.1 tNevada -·--------··---···­···---··----·­ 5,670 .009 91,058 .1 tNew Hampshire --··--­--­--­·--·­tNew Jersey -----·------­-------··-­···-­tNew Mexico ·-·-­---·-·--­----­·-­···· tNew York ---------­------------·---­*North Carolina -···------------­ 28,980 245,700 509,040 701 ,820 4,370,310 .046 .390 .808 1.114 6.937 465,293 4,041,334 423,317 12,588,066 3,170,276 .4 3.3 .3 10.3 2.6 tNorth Dakota -----­---··----··---·-­Ohio ------­---------··------­-----­--··­·-----­*Oklahoma ----­··-·­···---·-------·­-tOregon --------·-·-····----··­--·-··­---·­Pennsylvania ··------·-·­-·­---·-·-­-·­­Rhode Island ·············­·--·····--·­*South Carolina ··--·---­·­----­---­ 770,490 779,310 2,652,300 72,450 2,138,220 41,580 2,896,110 1.223 1.237 4.210 .115 3.394 .066 4.597 680,845 6,646,697 2,396,040 953,786 9,631,350 687,497 1,738,765 .6 5.4 2.() .8 '7.8 .6 1.4 South Dakota-­--··-·-··--------­-­ 709,380 1.126 692,849 .6 *Tennessee ·-··-----------­---------·-­---·· ·-­*Texas ---·----·­---------­----···--·­·-­·-­-···­Utah __ ·-·-------­--­--­----·---·­----------·· ____ Vermont ------------········----···­·-···-···-· *Virginia ·--­---------··------------.··-· ···----­Washin!rton . ----­--······--··-­.. ­·-----­ 3,081,960 5,046,930 407,610 88.200 2,574,810 100,800 4.892 8.011 .647 .140 4.087 .160 2,616,556 5,824,715 507,847 359,611 2,421,851 1,563,396 2.1 4.7 .4 .3 2.0 1.3 ;f:!on~i~g~~~~---:::::::::::.--.::::::=::= Wyoming ·------········-­···-----·-····--­--·­Outlying poss~sions ------····----­ 2,029,860 1,023,120 18,270 3,143,070 3.222 1.624 .028 4.989 1,729,205 2,939,006 225,565 1.4 2.4 .2 1$63,000,000 (ultimate distributi_on of. $20q,ooo,ooo would give each State approxi­mately three times the amounts bated m this column). Federal Government without any evidence that the Federal Govern­ment is going to have the money to meet this obligation; third, it provides an inequitable method of distribution. I OPPOSE EQUALIZING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Senator David I. Walsh, of Massachusetts (From Seventy-Sixth Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 244, Part 3, June 13, 1939, to Accompany S. 1305.) I cannot give my support to the bill ( S. 1305) to promote the general welfare through appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in providing more effective programs of public educa­tion which has been reported by the Committee on Education and Labor, and I am submitting this statement of my views as to this legislation and of the reasons why, in my judgment, it is both unwise and inexpedient and ought not to pass. Its purpose stated in the title as-"to promote the general welfare through appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in providing more effective programs of public education." It rests upon the premise that the education of our youth is of the highest importance to our national welfare and the economic and social advancement of society; that, taking the country as a whole, existing educational opportunities and facilities are variable and unequal and deficient in many particulars due to a variety of causes, one of which, without doubt, is an insufficiency of funds; in some cases due to indifference or neglect and undoubtedly, in other cases, to poor economic conditions. No one who is open-minded and acquainted with the facts will dispute these premises. No one will deny that even though educa­tional opportunities in the United States today are greater and edu­cational facilities are better, and our entire system of education more democratic than anywhere else in the world, nevertheless, there is much room for further improvement, and, in my opinion, more money alone will not accomplish all the betterment that is needed. Educational opportunities are not and never have been uniform except in totalitarian states, and that is so because from the earliest day to the present day, public education has been primarily a local responsibility and largely supported by local taxation. The States have collaborated with the local communities and have supported State institutions for higher learning, but the Federal Government has not heretofore had any direct connection with the public-school system. No one will deny that present-day concepts of social responsibility and present-day social and economic conditions raise grave and funda­ mental questions with respect to the scope and efficiency of our educa­ tioanl system. However, I repeat, mere spending of more money will not correct the present defects. The premises upon which the present bill and its predecessors­ which have been before the Congress intermittently for the past twenty years-rest, and its professed objectives, which are stated to be "to assist in equalizing educational opportunities" are widely ap­ plauded. Everyone will subscribe to the general proposition that equality of educational opportunity is a desirable objective. Three Major Questions The bill, however, and all others of its pattern present three other questions of far-reaching import. The first question is whether the Federal Government, as a matter of sound public policy, ought to assume responsibility for public education throughout the Nation and contribute substantially to the same out of the Federal Treasury and exercise an oversight thereof. If we answer that question in the negative, we need go no further. The second question is whether Federal subsidies to the public­school system can be maintained without ultimately bringing about a nationalization of our educational facilities and federalized bureau­cratic control. This is an eventuality which the proponents of the present bill insist is not intended and which they maintain can be avoided. They contend that by the terms of the present bill that danger is removed. I seriously question that conclusion. The third question is whether it is safe and prudent for the Federal Government to embark at this time upon the financial outlays and the future financial commitments comprehended in the program embodied in the present bill. In my judgment, most emphatically it is imprudent and dangerous to do so at the present time. With the public debt increasing at a tremendous pace, with a long-continuing yearly deficit in income, it is no time, however meritorious the proposal may be, to begin new and far-reaching financial undertakings. With the unemployment prob­lem still far from solved and relief expenditures continuing to be a primary necessity, it is imprudent, as a sound fiscal policy, to plunge into new undertakings. Questions as to Method There are, in addition, several questions as to method which are of deep concern. One is the question of whether, with respect to the series of subsidies provided in the bill, the method of their allocation to the several States is fair and equitable to all concerned. I believe that it is not. Another is ·the question of the participation, or the exclusion from participation in the grants, of American youths who attend elemen­tary and secondary schools maintained by private rather than by public funds. The present bill as reported to the Senate operates to exclude the privately supported schools and their pupils from participation in the authorized distribution of the funds, notwithstanding the fact that the States are to receive their grants of Federal funds not on the basis of school attendance but on the basis (at least in part) of all inhabitants from 5 to 19 years of age. It is to be noted in this connection that there are 2,638,775 American boys and girls today who are receiving their schooling in private, ele­mentary, and secondary schools-nearly all because of a desire upon the part of their parents, to have them taught the fundamental prin­ciples of Christianity. To require these children to abandon these schools as a condition of their participation in the bounties which it is proposed to distribute out of the Federal Treasury is unconscion­able. It is a discrimination which is indefensible and inciqentally runs counter to the considered judgment and recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Education, upon which the pres­ent bill is predicated. Previous Bills for Federal Aid to Education The present effort to initiate a program of direct Federal subsidies for education and Federal oversight of our public-school system is not new. Itis a revival upon a larger scale of the objectives sought and the program contained in the bill introduced in the Sixty-fifth Con­gress in 1918 by the late Senator Hoke Smith, of Georgia, and in the Sixty-sixth Congress by Senator Smith and Representative Horace Mann Towner, of Iowa, in the House, and then widely publicized as the Smith-Towner Education Bill. It undertook to create a Federal Department of Education and to authorize $100,000,000 annually in Federal subsidies to the States for five specified educational purposes. This became the Towner-Sterling Bill in the Sixty-seventh Congress and the Sterling-Reed Bill in the Sixty-eighth Congress. These bills never came to vote in either branch of the CongrEss. Then there was a ten-year interval of subsidence so far as Congress was concerned in these demands for Federal subsidies to education. Policy of Assistance to Youths Rather Than Schools Adopted Meantime the Federal Government was not showing any disposition to ignore the needs of the youth of our land nor to be ungenerous in financial provisions for their assistance. Two major programs were initiated and are now being maintained on a semipermanent basis, through which the Federal Government is attempting to meet the needs of youth for aid, for work experience and for guidance, and for educational training. One of these is the Civilian Conservation Corps for unemployed youths of welfare families and for which upward of $300,000,000 is now being appropriated annually; and the other is the National Youth Administration for youths of welfare families at school, which is costing upward of $50,000,000 annually. It is to be noted that in the distribution of these funds no distinction is made against students attending private schools. Analysis of S. 1305 as Reported The bill now before the Senate is predicated upon the one intro­duced in June, 1936, by Senator Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, and by Representative Brooks Fletcher, of Ohio, in the House and reintro­duced in 1937 and revised in 1938. The bill contains six titles and provides for Federal grants-in-aid to the States in seven categories plus a provision for direct Federal support of education of children residing in Federal reservations and at foreign stations. (1) The first and largest item is a contribution for-"all types of current operating and maintenance expenses of public elementary and secondary schools and their auxiliary services." Such expenses may include teacher training, school libraries, health, welfare and recreational activities, nursery schools and kiI?-dergartens, junior colleges, services for handicapped pupils, vocational guidance, adult education and recreation (if carried on in the public schools), textbooks, and transportation of pupils. The appropriation starts at $40,000,000 and progressively increases $20,000,000 each succeeding year, reaching $140,000,000 in 1945. (2) The second item is a contribution for "improved teacher preparation"-$2,000,000 the first year, $4,000,000 the second year, and thereafter $6,000,000 annually. (3) The third item is a contribution toward "construction and modernization" of public elementary and secondary school buildings. The contribution is to be limited ordinarily to 50 per cent of the cost, exclusive of land, but in certain cases may be 90 per cent of the cost. The. appropriation is $20,000,000 the first year and $30,000,000 an­ nually thereafter. (4) The fourth item is a contribution toward the cost of adminis­tration of State Departments of Education. Each State, if it coop­erates to the satisfaction of the Federal Commissioner of Education, will receive $5,000 annually, plus its apportioned share of the remain­der of the fund. None of this money may go to pay salaries of members of the State board or elected officials. The appropriation is $1,000,000 the first year, $1,500,000 the second year, and $2,000,000 annually thereafter. The formula provided in the bill for the apportionment to the States of the funds in the first four categories named above is of self-evident complexity and of dubious equity. First there is to be an "index of educational load" of each State which according to the bill is-"the percentage that the number of inhabitants 5 to 19 years of age of that State is to the total number of such inhabitants of all the States." The number of these persons is to be certified annually by the Census Bureau, State by State, and it becomes necessary to make a division of these totals as between rural and urban inhabitants (within the prescribed ages) inasmuch as the bill, in order to weight the percentages to the advantage of the rural areas, provides that­"each rural inhabitant ( 5 to 19) shall be counted as one and four­tenths inhabitant." Second, there is to be an "index of financial ability" of each State. The Secretary of the Treasury is charged with the duty of determin­ing this index annually, State by State. He is required by the terms of the bill, in making his estimates, to "develop an index of the revenue that can be raised from a uniform tax plan applied to all States." Where will this lead us to? The Federal Commissioner of Education is directed to take into account such things as the wealth and total income of the respective States, total. net incomes over $5,000 and under $25,000, and the total of incomes above the latter figure; total motor-vehicle registration, total value added by manufacturing, total farm cash income, total postal receipts, and total retail trade. The immense amount of statistical data comprehended in these calc.-ualtions is apparent and there is no assurance whatever that the resulting "index" will justly and accurately measure the comparative "financial ability" of the States nor insure equitable apportionment. It is evident that the bill proceeds upon the assumption that the claims of the rural areas upon the Federal Treasury for funds for education are entitled to preference over similar claims of urban areas. Yet who can say that some southern rural county is in greater need of Federal subsidy for the support of its schools than some northern city where local taxes are already at a point beyond the capacity of the taxpayers long to sustain? After the index of educational load and the index of financial ability have been determined and certified, then the Commissioner of Edu­cation is to proceed to determine for each State an "index of financial need" which is to be reached by-"computing the excess, if any, of the State's index of educational load over 85 per cent of the State's index of financial ability." Then comes the final paradoxical step, the apportionment of the funds in-"an amount which bears the same ratio to the total amount available as the index of financial need bears to the sum of the indexes of financial need of all the States." Page 5 of title I of the bill contains a host of provisions applicable generally to the States as a prerequisite for participation in the subsidies. These deal with the administration of the funds by the States, for reports required to be made to Washington, for "just apportionment" of funds in the case of separate schools for separate races, for labor standards in school construction, for staffing State Departments of Education on a basis of merit and efficiency; for the States to adopt "plans" for their own distribution of the Government funds among the local school jurisdictions as will-"assist effectively in equalizing educational opportunities within the State." In all of these things the Federal Bureau of Education is to be the final judge. There is a further stipulation that to be eligible for the subsidies the State, regardless of future financial causes, must--"have provided from State revenues (for all purposes for which the Federal subsidies are to be granted) a total not less than the total amount spent for such combined purposes in the school year of 1938." This provision appears to overlook or disregard the fact that the principal expenditures for schools are municipal and district tax revenues as distinguished from State revenues. Title II Title II of the bill relates to grants-in-aid for adult education. Thf\ amount is $5,000,000 the first year, $10,000,000 the second year, and $15,000,000 annually thereafter. The apportionment of these funds to the States is on a basis of adult population; the ratio that the total number of persons 20 years of age or over in each State bears to the total number of such persons in all States. Title III Title III of the bill relates to grants for rural library service. The amount is $2,000,000 the first year, $4,000,000 the second year, and $6,000,000 annually thereafter. The apportionment of these funds to the States is on the basis of the ratio of rural inhabitants in each State to the total of the same for all the States. 214 The University of Texas Publication Title IV Title IV provides grants for "Cooperative educational research and demonstration, and for administration." The amount authorized is to be 3 per cent of whatever is the annual total of the Federal sub­sidies in the other categories. Sixty per cent of this amount is to be given to the States for whatever projects and in whatever amounts the Commissioner of Education sees fit, but not less than $5,000 to each State. The other 40 per cent is to be retained by the Federal Bureau for paying the cost of Federal participation in these surveys. Title V Title V relates to education of children residing on Federal reserva­tions and at foreign stations (excluding Indians and natives of Alaska). The appropriation is not to exceed $3,000,000 annually. Title VI Title VI contains the requisite definitions and miscellaneous pro­visions. There is provided a general advisory committee on educa­tion (nonsalaried). There are references to State councils of adult education, many provisions relating to "reports by the States" and about consultation and advice with the Federal Commissioner of Education and the Federal bureau. The bill does not provide for the establishment of a Federal Depart­ment of Education headed by an officer of cabinet rank, which has been a question of much controversy in years past, but if the present bill be enacted and the program of Federal subsidies to education which it provides be inaugurated, the Federal Commissioner of Edu­cation will have as much authority and his bureau the same functions as if he were titled "Secretary" and it were titled "Department." With respect to the question of nationalization of education and Federal interference. with State and local school systems, the pro­ponents of the bill rely on the language contained in the "statement of policy" in the first section of the bill wherein it is recited that: "the provisions of this Act shall be so construed as to maintain local initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education, and to reserve explicitly to the States and their local subdivisions, the administra­tion of the schools * * * control over the processes of education, control and determination of curricula * * * methods of instruction * * * selection of personnel * * *," etc. While in this respect the bill may be alleged to be an improve­ment over its predecessors, I cannot escape the conclusion, however, that in the complexity of reports, of plans, of State legislation to conform to Federal policies, of counsel and advice and joint partici­pation of the Federal Government and the States, and all of the Equalization of Educational Opportunity 215 other manifold details of the operation of the contemplated program of Federal subsidies, our public-school systems would be gradually but no less inexorably drawn more and more under the thumb of a Federal bureaucracy. It may be fairly argued that if the States and local communities are to be left alone to run their schools as they see fit and to spend Federal moneys for school subsidies as they see fit such an arrange­ment is indefensible from the standpoint of the Federal Government and the taxpayers generally. Congress ought not to give away Federal funds to the States, with no Federal control over the spend­ing of the funds. If, on the other hand, the Federal Government is to retain control over the expenditures and to dictate to them, then it means Federal control of education-an alternative equally obnoxious. I doubt if there is a middle ground, although the proponents of this bill profess to believe they have devised such a ground. Conclusion I do not subscribe to the doctrine that because our public schools and our educational facilities are a vital element in our national welfare that they thereby become the proper concern and implied responsibility of the National Government. Our schools are one of the few remaining bulwarks of local self­government and community enterprise. They should so remain. They have on the whole been well managed and generously supported. We have today too much centralization of control over the affairs of our citizens in a Federal bureaucracy. We should not add to it by this new excursion into the field of education. We cannot undertake to subsidize our public schools out of the Federal Treasury and still leave the schools free of the taint of Fed­eral control. Federal domination of education will be the ultimate and, in my opinion, the inevitable consequence. The present bill is the opening wedge--the camel's nose under the tent. Let it be remembered that the most potent weapon of dictators and revolutionists is the control of the schools and the education of the youth. Let us be on our guard against putting the public schools in our own land under the yoke of a centralized bureaucracy and thereby provide the mechanism for possible abuse in the years to come. And if these reasons were not enough for the rejection of the pres­ent bill and others of its kind, let us give heed to the financial implications. The appropriations authorized by the present bill over a six-year period aggregate $900,000,000, an average of $150,000,000 annually. This is only the beginning. The advocates of this program of Federal grants-in-aid to the States for educational purposes freely concede that very much larger Federal subsidies in years to come will be essential if the objective sought---of equalized educational oppor­tunities-is to be attained. In my judgment it is utterly unconscionable at this time of dire need and general business depression to superimpose this new and permanent financial load upon the already staggering total of Federal expenditures for relief, better housing, national defense, and the other long list of Federal activities and Federal responsibilities. Where is this new money to come from? It will come in the first instance from new loans floated by the Treasury to be met in years to come, sometime, somehow, by taxation. The money is not in reality a "gift" by the Federal Government to the local communities for their schools. It comes in the end out of the pockets of all our citizens in taxes, direct or indirect, drawn into the Federal Treasury and then passed back in the guise of a gift but with strings at­tached-the strings of Federal control. If we are to spend increased sums of money for education of our youth it must be provided in the end by the people, out of their earnings and their savings. Let the people determine the amount with their eyes open and let them regulate and oversee the spending of it, in their own way. I have already said the apportionment of the funds to the several States under the formula contained in the present bill is in my view open to serious criticism and is patently inequitable. "Rich" and "Poor" States Aside from the underlying implications of nationalization of edu­ cation, the financial aspects of this Federal subsidy program is in the final analysis a device whereby it is intended that funds shall be siphoned out of the communities and the States that are presumed to be "rich" and poured into the communities and the States that are presumed to be "poor," via the Federal Treasury. The cost of education is one of the principal expenditures of the State and local governments. It is the chief item in the financial budgets of States and their municipal subdivisions. Tremendous financial sacrifices are made by some States and communities to maintain a reasonably high standard of education. Staggering costs are met by many citizens with meager incomes to provide an educa­ tion for their children in private educational institutions because of a particular or special training desired which the public schools cannot provide. Upon what principle of justice can the people of such States or communities have to place an additional tax burden on them in order to improve the educational system of some other State, unwilling or disinterested in striving for the best educational facilities? In many States the principal source of revenue for support of the public educational system is the tax on real estate. In communities where the valuation on real estate for taxation purposes is high and the tax rate is also high, better educational systems exist. In com­munities where the valuation on real estate for taxation purposes is low and the tax rate is also low, inferior educational facilities prevail. This is true even within the States. We are now attempting to make the first pay more taxes to help the latter group or else lower their standards to help bring up the standards of the latter. They are "bled white," now. Many of our large cities today are in desperate financial circumstances. Why punish them because of their generous financial sacrifices in the past by demanding aid from them for those communities which may have made little or no effort in the past? Statistics have been compiled by students of taxation which indi­cate that there is a variation in the various States of the ratio of existing true value of general property from 20 to 125 per cent. The same spread also exists between the several States and their subdi­visions in the tax rate levied on general property. Some States have income taxes and others have none; some States have sales taxes and others none. Indeed, there are a great variety of taxes that some States have that others do not have, the revenue from which, in many States, goes into the general fund out of which educational systems are maintained. I again inquire, How can you define a "poor" State needing Federal aid for educational purposes unless you take into account the burdens already assumed by some States and communi­ties and the burdens that other States and communities have refused to assume for educational purposes by high assessed value and taxes levied against those values and the many special taxes imposed to maintain, directly or indirectly, the educational system of a particular community or State? In other words, why should the taxpayers of the communities, who taxed themselves excessively to maintain high standards of educa­tion, be further taxed to assist in uplifting the educational systems in the so-called poorer communities-"poorer" because in many in­stances their tax values and tax rates are low? It is either the financial limitations which States and communities impose upon themselves-and have a right to do-or actual neglect in some cases, that is responsible in many cases for the so-called substandard school. If property is valued much below its real value for taxation purposes and but a small percentage of the State or community income is expended for educational purposes, how can it be claimed a community or State is poor and needs assistance from another State that is expending generously upon its educational system? 218 The University of Texas Publication Plan of taxation worked out by tax experts in the Congress, employed by the advisory committee of an organization known ·as Friends of the Public Schools Bulletin of this organization publishing this table states: "Tables 2 and 3, pages 17 and 18 of the [majority] report of the Senate Com­mittee shows the amount of Federal aid each State would receive and the percentage they would pay on the billion dollars necessary to finance this scheme. People are not supposed to work out the tables themselves to see how much the taxpayers of each State would pay in return for the 'hand-out,' but here it is." E B C D A $40,00'0,­000,000 States will national pay States will Net gain to Net loss to debt each State pays receive States States $245,200,000 Arizona ------------------------­ .$53,270,000 $59,400,000 $6,130,000Alabama --------------------­1,100,000 116,000,000 Arkansas --------------------­ 4,000,000 2,900,000 36,350,000 186,000,000 California ----------------------­ 41,000,000 4,650,000 8,188,400,000 Colorado ----------------------­ $70,910,00079,710,000 8,800,000 840,800,000 Connecticut ---------------­ 8,520,000 3,600,000 4,920,000 854,400,000 Delaware ----------------------­ 21,360,000 2,800,000 18,560,000 192,000,000 District of Columbia___ 500,000 4,800,000 4,300,000 886,400,000 Florida -------------------­ 9,660,000 700,000 8,960,000 441,600,000 Georgia -----------------­ 11,040,000 7,700,000 3,340,000 420,400,000 2,930,000 46,390,00010,510,000 56,900,000 117,200,000 4,900,000 1,970,000 75,060,000 3,002,400,000 Indiana -----------------­ filf!~is --:::::=::::=:::=::==:= 12,400,000 62,660,000 18,190,000 25,000,000 6,810,000 727,600,000 Iowa -------------------------------­ 687,200,000 Kansas --------------------­ 1,280,00017,180,000 15,900,000 420,000,000 8,700,000 10,500,000 8,100,000 18,600,000 39,200,000 348,000,000 47,900,000 ~~~~'i~~~ --::::::::::=::=::::= 29,070,000 297,200,000 Maine -----------------------------­ 7,430,000 36,500,000 6,810,000 4,810,000 272,400,000 Maryland ---------------------­ 2,000,000 17,120,000 14,220,000 684,800,000 Massachusetts ---------------­ 2,900,000 2,106,000,000 Michigan -----------------------­ 52,650,000 46,350,000 6,300,000 31,250,000 1,250,000,000 20,500,000 25,300,000 5,950,000 10,700,000 9,800,000 820,000,000 3,680,000 48,500,000 44,820,000 147,200,000 E!::~~!f~i--~~:::::::=::::::::::::= 26,610,000 11,410,000 1,064,400,000 Montana ------------------------­ 15,200,000 4,280,000 3,100,000 1,180,000 171,200,000 Nebraska -----------------------­ 9,490,000 1,410,000 10,900,000 379,600,000 Nevada ---------------------------­ 1,260,000 200,000 1,060,000 50,400,000 New Hampshire ---------­ 3,980,000 900,000 8,060,000 159,200,000 New Jersey ·-------------------­ 47,740,000 6,400,000 1,909,600,000 New Mexico -------------------­ 41,840,000 1,710,000 7,700,000 5,990,000 68,400,000 New York --------------------­ 195,950,000 19,000,000 176,950,000 7,838,000,000 North Carolina ----------­ 12,330,000 52,670,000 65,000,000 498,200,000 North Dakota -------------­ 3,310,000 8,390,000 11,700,000 132,400,000 Ohio --·-·----------------------------­ 50,390,000 16,300,000 2,015,600,000 Oklahoma -----------------------­ 84,090,000 9,920,000 39,900,000 29,980,000 896,800,000 Oregon ____ ·----------------------­ 7,500,000 1,900,000 800,000,000 Pennsylvania -----------------­ 5,600,00074,210,000 37,600,000 36,610,000 2,968,400,000 Rhode Island --------------­ 7,890,000 1,100,000 6,790,000 315,600,000 South Carolina -------------­ 4,950,000 37,850,000 42,800,000 198,000,000 South Dakota --------------­ 3,280,000 10,800,000 7,520,000 181,200,000 Tennessee --------------------­ 9,400,000 46,200,000 36,800,000 376,000,000 Texas -------------------------------­ 29,680,000 47,120,000 76,800,000 1,187,200,000 Utah ----------------------------· 2,930,000 6,300,000 3,370,000 117,200,0002,810,000 1,700,000 1,110,000 112,400,000 ~i::i~iat ::::::::::::=::::::::::= 11,230,000 38,800,000 27,570,000 449,200,000 W>ishinC!:ton ·-------·----------­ 12,680,000 2,800,000 9,880,000 507,200,000 7,160,000 30.1>00.000 23,340,000 286,400,000 ~i:!on~/~g~~~~----:::::::::::::: 20,550,000 17,000,000 3,550,000 822,000.000 Wyoming -------------------------­ 2,180,000 500,000 1,680,000 87,200,000Out.lying areas (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc.) _ 5,300,000 46,600,000 41,300,000 212,000,000 The people of one State have the right to demand, before having additional taxes imposed upon them to help improve such a distinctly local function as education, that the valuation of real estate for tax­ation purposes and the money raised by taxation for educational purposes be equalized everywhere and operated on pro rata basis. What this bill is undertaking to do is to actually punish by further taxation the States, communities, and citizens who have sacrificed most in the past to improve the educational opportunities for their children. This means that to apply this plan of national aid to education, we must enter into the field of interference with what has been the most basic and fundamental of all local rights-the right of allowing people to levy taxes according to their own needs and desires. For all of the above reasons, I dissent from this bill and urge its rejection. Table Showing What States Receive-See p. 218 I am annexing hereto a table which purports to show what the several States would pay out and what the several States would receive under the proposed plan granting Federal aid to education. Range in Expenditures of Cities I submit some illustrations of the extensive range in expenditures by different cities, for public-school education. These figures were taken from a publication entitled "Per Capita Costs in City Schools, 1936--37," published by the Office of Education, Department of the Interior. Educational expenses per pupil Of 68 cities over 100,000 population: High: Yonkers, N. Y._ _ __________________________________________ $155.17 Low: Norfolk, Va._________ __ _ _____ __________ 51.32 Average ---------------112.08 Of 82 cities, 30,000 to 99,999 population: High: New Rochelle, N. Y._ __ ___ ___ _________________ 198.09 Low: Gadsden, Ala._________ _________________ 28.62 Average -----------------·---··----------------87.04 Of 79 cities, 10,000 to 29,999 population: High: Hempstead, N. Y·--------------------------------------------137.86 Low: Waycross, Ga._________ ____________________________________ 27.17 Average ___ --------69.37 Of 79 cities, 2,500 to 9,999 population: High: Swarthmore, Pa.___________ _ _ __ _____________ _______ 166.44 Low: Dublin, Ga.___ _________ _______ ______________________ __ 27.90 Average -----------------------------------------------------73.26 Average of 308 cities___ _________________ _______ ________________ 105.60 Education Expenses of States I submit some figures taken from the Financial Statistics of State and Local Governments, published in 1932 by the United States De­partment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Only a few States indicate the per cent of education expense and therefore this informa­tion is not available. Education State Per cent expensesTotal revenue 27$381,350,000$1,388, 734,000 New York -------------------------------------------------­1010,637,00099,829,000 Georgia -------------------------------------------------------­ 2181,608,000 384,019,000 606,634,000 Massachusetts -------------------------------------------­24124,747,000 26 30 65,787,000266,467 ,000 W1~~o~~i~----::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::: 3,745,00022,668,000Nevada --------------------------------------------------------­ THE REAL PERIL OF FEDERAL SUBSIDIES By Dr. John J. Tigert, President, University of Florida (From Nation's Schools, July 1934, pp. 12-15. Reprinted by permission.) Gradually the Federal Government has been assuming powers that were originally exercised by the States and local units of govern­ment. The depression has greatly accelerated the tendency toward greater Federal participation in the affairs of the States and the people. In fact, this process has developed more rapidly during the present emergency than at any time in our history. The bulk of our citizenship entertains more than an ordinary degree of appreciation of the courage, skill and energy of President Roose­celt in coping with these most perplexing problems. His initiative was highly instrumental in restoring the confidence of the American people at a time when their faith in leadership, both of a public and private character, was all but lost. The Nation owes the Presi­dent a vast debt of gratitude. It should be observed, however, that the whole recovery program has been carried forward on an emotional basis, similar to the spirit in which we have been accustomed to prosecute wars. Will the Emergency Program Became Permanent? This emotional flavor is mentioned not by way of condemnation, for I appreciate this was essential to provide popular enthusiasm for the President's plans, but in order to call attention to the fact that social movements attended by phenomena of this kind frequently take on a different aspect with the return to normal feeling and thinking. Let us assume that the emergency measures which the President has brought forward have saved us. Certainly his handling of the banking situation was superb. Without Federal assistance, it is probable the whole banking system of the country would have crum­bled into chaos, bringing unspeakable tragedy in its wake. It may be conceded that without Federal succor the railroads would have gone to pot. Who can imagine what dire consequences would have followed such an event? Unquestionably the agricultural situation has been critical ever since the inflation stimulated by the World War. Although it is still far from satisfactory there have been unques­tioned advances. Everyone who takes a modicum of interest in schools is aware of the pitiable plight precipitated upon the Nation's schools by the economic stringency. There is no need to rehearse the tale of woe of schools closed, of terms shortened, of teachers and studies elimi­nated, of salaries reduced and unpaid, of countless children neglected and unprovided for. I am not questioning these various programs which have been pro­jected during an emergency. How much of this emergency program will finally become permanent is entirely another question. Some persons evidently anticipate that we are to go still further on the road to Federal paternalism. Others are equally confident that there will be a reaction toward State and individual rights. Time alone will answer this question. Let us make a calm examination of the necessity and wisdom of the Federal Government's embarking upon the financial support of public schools as a permanent policy under normal conditions. There is no conveyance by the States, in the Federal Constitution, to the Federal Government of power in relation to schools. If the Federal Government is to be justified in participating in the educa­tional program of the States, it can be done only under a very specious appeal to the general welfare clause in the preamble. Pos­sibly in this way most anything might be included within the power of the Federal Government. Federal Support Leads to Federal Control Many advocates of Federal subsidies for the schools do not believe that Federal control or Federal interference is involved in Federal support. Inevitably Federal control must accompany Federal sup­port. My experience in handling Federal subsidies for education under the limited acts which are now in existence has taught me that you must either have Federal control and interference or you must have misappropriation of funds and waste. The method, whereby the Federal Government has stimulated certain types of education in The University of Texas Publication the States through lands and monies under the Morrill, Smith­Hughes, Smith-Lever and related acts, is well known. It is interesting to observe that this policy was inaugurated during an emergency in which the very existence of the Federal Government was at stake. The first Morrill Act was signed by Abraham Lincoln while the Civil War was in progress. There was profound anxiety as to the ability of the Union to preserve itself. Trained man power, food and materials that would provide the sinews of successful war might prove insufficient. Accordingly, the act made large land grants, subsequently followed by cash subsidies, to institutions in the States which would teach agriculture, the mechanic arts, and provide mili­tary training. Higher education at that time was largely confined to general culture and professional training in the old established occupations. Sooner or later it was inevitable that a Nation like the United States, carved out of a vast undeveloped territory, would have to provide for the teaching of the scientific principles which apply to the devel­opment of land and its resources. It was just as evident that the greatest industrial Nation of all time would have to have technical and engineering schools. In this instance, national policies adopted in an emergency proved helpful and necessary for the permanent welfare of the people and the country generally. Certain other Fed­eral subsidies came into existence in the crisis incident to the World War. For example, the Smith-Hughes Act was passed about that time. My Experience as U. S. Commissioner Federal funds which go to the land-grant colleges and universities are checked by the U. S.. Office of Education. The Smith-Hughes funds are now merged into the Office of Education. The Smith­ Lever and various other acts relating to agricultural education are administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. The Office of Education has never found it necessary to interfere seri­ ously with the operation of the land-grant colleges in the use of the Morrill funds, although opinions of the Attorney General of the United States indicate that such interference is possible. Only once as Commissioner of Education did I find it necessary to recommend that the funds available be withheld because of obvious waste in a certain institution. The Federal Board for Vocational Education has required the State boards to submit definite and de­ tailed plans in advance for the expenditure of funds appropriated under the Smith-Hughes Act. This board has maintained a regional organization and regular inspection. During the time that I served on the board, we found it necessary frequently to withhold funds or require adjustments so that the money would not be misused by the State boards. The Department of Agriculture has always kept a close super­vision over the funds dispensed through it. It has a policy of rigid inspection. The Federal Board of Maternity and Infant Hygiene, which was composed of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Chief of the Children's Bureau, and the Commissioner of Education, operated for eight years upon a basis similar to the Federal Board for Vocational Education. The States were required to submit their plans for Q.pproval of the Federal board. There were a number of States which refused to cooperate with this board and would not accept the Federal funds under its management. Politics Greatly Complicate the Matter It is an unfortunate fact that the supervision of educational affairs is still highly involved in politics in most of the States, the chief educational officer being compelled to engage in partisan campaigns. The same is true of local school officers, particularly in the county and similar units, with the general exception of city officers. This promiscuous handling of school matters by politicians, long deplored by practically all educational bodies and leaders, greatly complicates the efficient handling of educational funds and in large measure .accounts for the necessity of some kind of Federal control to pre­vent misapplication. Some advocates of Federal aid to schools have recommended that the money be turned over to the State officials and divided in proportion to the number of children of school age or some similar principle. Such a method of distribution, with the schools subject as they are to political exploitation, could end only in much waste and eventual scandal. It is common knowledge that, for reasons akin to those mentioned, State funds which have been provided for the schools have been often misapplied and sometimes wrongfully withheld. Legislatures have tried to cope with this problem by passing acts attempting to make the school funds sacred or inviolate with varying degrees of success. Possibly a dozen States have made considerable progress in a program of professionalizing the a<:iministration and supervision of the schools. There is no immediate prospect that the schools can be taken out of politics in many of the remaining States. Another factor which adds to the difficulty in the efficient use of Federal funds for schools is the fantastic assumption that the average citizen has concerning Federal money. Most people consider money coming from Washington like the gifts that they get at Christmas time. They seem to forget that Federal money, like State, county, district, and city money, must be raised by taxation. It has been well established in practice that money collected by taxation will be expended with less waste near the source. Reason and experience both indicate that Federal money cannot be expended wisely and efficiently except by exercising Federal control and supervision and even then there is considerable waste; witness, for example, the huge pork barrels, such as the appropriations for rivers and harbors and other matters which are the result of log­rolling, trading, and political self-interest. If we embark upon a program of turning over Federal money to schools without any strings attached, it is only a question of. time until the waste, extrava­gance and misuse of these funds will result in a reaction or a change. The alternative is Federal control. Is It Consistent with the National Welfare? The soundness of a policy of Federal aid does not depend upon the ease with which money may be made available for the schools, the amount that can be secured, the promptness with which obligations are met, and considerations of this kind. The answer to this whole question should be determined in the light of the interests of the people and the welfare of the country. Is Federal control of school matters consistent with the national welfare'? The amount of supervision which will be n.ecessary to pro­mote the honest and efficient expenditure of money will bring us face to face with a peril that may eventually lay the ax at the roots of American institutions. The administration of schools in this country has been a necessary and appropriate corollary of represent­ative government. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed emancipation from tyranny and called attention to the establishment of government by the consent of the governed. Closely conforming to monarchal ideas, systems of education in European countries have been administered by individuals who are the creatures of a central government. The organization, the courses of instruction, the selection of personnel, the methods of teaching, and vital matters of this kind rest with a minister of education or similar officer in some European countries. In the United States, we have hoped that both government and schools could be placed under the direction of the people themselves or their representatives. Russia Is an Example Unquestionably, democratic government has some weaknesses. It is probably less efficient than a government under an absolute mon­arch or a dictator who is able and honest. The best apology that can be offered for popular government was advanced by the New England statesman, Fisher Ames, who was indirectly quoted by Emerson in his Essay on Politics: "Fisher Ames expressed the popular security more wisely when he compared a monarchy and a republic, saying that a monarchy is a merchantman, which sails well, but will sometimes strike a rock and go to the bottom; while a republic is a raft, which would never sink, but then your feet are always in water." If we turn over to the Federal Government the responsibility of the operation of the schools, we have forged the weapons whereby some able and self-seeking individual or group may some day trans­form our political, social and economic system. Lenin, working with a vast, unwieldy and almost illiterate population in Russia, was able to bring about a coup d'etat. His system could not have survived for more than fifteen years if the school system and the agencies of popular information, such as churches, newspapers, books, clubs, and assemblages of the people, had not been either completely elimi­nated or brought under control. The Russian people today are powerless to know or think except those things that the Government would have them know and think. It is hardly necessary to enlarge upon the extraordinary peril which would be encountered by exces­sive central control of our schools. Probably no one who advocates Federal aid would disagree with the opinions here expressed. They would probably insist that nothing of this kind is contemplated. The history of our country is a plain revelation of gradual usurpa­tion of powers by the Federal Government. There is hardly an instance where the Federal Government has embarked upon the financial support, operation or regulation of matters pertaining to the States or individuals where there has been retrenchment. The regulation of alcoholic liquors is a notable exception. Jefferson said the cure of democracy is more democracy. Wherever we have at­tempetd to cure by Federal intervention, usually the result has been more Federal intervention. There is every expectation that once Uncle Sam's camel gets his nose into the educational tent, he will some day come inside. A sure concomitant of Federal support is the destruction of local support. It has been stated that tax money expended close to the source is expended more carefully because there is more local interest. People are more careful of their own money than somebody else's. The people develop more interest and initiative in regard to enter­prises in which they put their money. If manna is to fall out of the Federal heavens for the benefit of the schools, localities will inevitably cut off necessary financial support. Interest and enthusi­asm, which in many places have been all to little, will diminish in a corresponding degree. It is accepted that State support is necessary to have efficient schools which provide anything like equal opportunity for children in different localities. And yet, State aid is sometimes attended by a certain amount of loss of local interest and support. In 1931, the Legislature of Florida wisely increased the State appropriation for public schools. Unfortunately, funds were never made available to carry out fully this legislation. This deplorable situation was fur­ther enhanced by the fact that many county boards and district boards cut down the financial support that they had been giving the schools because of the increased appropriation by the State. Federal Aid Not Needed Under Normal Conditions When all the State funds failed to appear, the schools suffered a double disappointment. As surely as the night follows the day, in­creased responsibility by the Federal Government for the financial support of schools will be attended by decreasing support in certain States and localities. Even though the financial losses are small, popular interest which has been built up slowly and tediously will disappear quickly. Where a man's treasure is there is his heart also. I have shown that Federal aid to the schools must be attended by Federal control, under present conditions, if we are to avoid general waste and misuse of these funds. I also have pointed out that Fed­eral control will tend to become greater and that centralized opera­tion of the schools is a menace to our institutions and ideals. Finally, let it be observed that there is no necessity for Federal aid under normal conditions whatever we may do in times of emergency like the present. All the States are able to maintain a uniform efficient system of schools on all levels from the kindergarten through the university without severely taxing their resources. A bulletin, pub­lished by the National Education Association,1 which goes into the question of the income, wealth and ability of the different States to support schools shows that no State is unable to finance its own school system. This bulletin was based on information collected by the U. S. Office of Education, the National Industrial Conference Board, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and other reliable agencies just previous to the onset of the depression and the information assembled reveals the fact that in 1926 no State was expending more than 41h per cent of its income on support for its schools, while many were spending less than 2 per cent. The percentage of value of school property in relation to all property was scarcely over 2 per cent in the States where it was highest and, in some States, it was less than 1 per cent. The same bulletin shows that the expenditure for schools in the various States is a mere fraction of the amounts expended for various other things of much less importance. Number of Children Is Decreasing A similar bulletin, published in 1932, on facts on school costs pre­sents the same data for the year 1930, after the depression had begun to make itself felt. There is some increase in the percentage of 1Research Bulletin of the National Education Association, Vol. VII, No. l, 1929. school costs in relation to the income of the States, but this is not sufficient substantially to alter the situation. In 1930, the highest percentage of school costs in any State was approximately 6 per cent of the State's income. This varied down to a minimum of ap­proximately 2 per cent in the lowest State. Neither is there any significant difference in the percentage of value of school property in relation to all other property within the States. This item varied in 1930 from something over 3 per cent in the highest to less than 2 per cent. In this connection it should be noted that in 1930 there were 128,840 fewer children under 5 years of age in the United States than there were in 1920. We have passed the peak of population increase in the United States. Social and economic pressure, resulting in birth control, has halted the population increase in a way similar to the situation which has long existed in France and some other countries. This definitely means that the burden of supporting schools will be relatively less in the future than it has been in the past. It is evident that there is no necessity for Federal financial assist­ance to the schools under normal conditions as no State, even in pros­perous times, has ever expended more than a trifling proportion of its resources on its schools. SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION ACT OF 1939 By Dr. Gould Wickey, Executive Officer of the Council of Church Boards of Education and of the National Conference of Church-Related Colleges (From Hearings on S. 1305, 1939, p. 370.) These national bodies, which I represent, appreciate the general intent of Senate Bill 1305 "to assist the States and Territories in providing more effective programs of public education." Only those who have seen or exRerienced the inadequate facilities of public edu­cation in many States can appreciate the need for a greater equal­ization of educational opportunities, among and within the States. Notwithstanding this appreciation, in loyalty to both conscience and country, it is necessary to present to you our objections to the legislation under consideration. Federal Control It is commonplace to remind you that the authority for the educa­tion of the young is vested fundamentally in the family. Those were wise men who initiated a system of education locally controlled. The legislation now being considered does endeavor to lessen the danger of Federal control. In fact, the bill explicitly states that its provisions shall be so construed "as to maintain local and State initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education and to reserve explicitly to the States and their local subdivisions the administra­tion of schools, including institutions for the preparation of teachers, the control over the processes of education, the control and determina­tion of curricula of the schools, the methods of instruction to be employed in them, the selection of personnel employed by the State and its agencies, and local school jurisdictions." However, the Federal Government cannot appropriate money with­out assurances that the money thus appropriated will be spent accord­ing to specifications. And accordingly, under the various titles of the bill there are certain stipulations regarding the availability of funds, reporting, counseling, and auditing. Whatever confidence we may impose in a Federal agency, we must be realistic enough to admit that the specifications of the bill do give considerable authority to the Federal agency which would administer these funds. Experi­ences of the past are no guaranty that the human beings, adminis­tering the provisions of this bill, will not misuse and overstep their authority. Even a member of the National Advisory Committee on Education has admitted that Federal grants may lead to Federal control. In the light of the experiences in other countries, and even of some experiences in this country, the American people are opposed to any legislation which tends toward the centralization of power anywhere, and especially in the subjection of education to the uncertainties of remote control. Will Increase Indebtedness According to the remarks of Senator Elbert D. Thomas, made when he introduced this bill, the authorized appropriations would amount to more than $75,000,000 in 1940 and more than $208,000,000 in 1945. However much we believe in the importance of education, we must be realistic enough to consider whether such expenditures can be justified at this time in light of our 10,000,000 unemployed, many of whom are hungry, homeless, and inadequately clothed. My per­sonal contacts in the various States reveal on the part of laborers, businessmen, industrialists, and professional people a growing fear, and even dread, of the indebtedness of our Federal Government. More Teacher-Training Unnecessary In one State approximately $10,000,000 are being expended on a building program for the State teachers' colleges. And yet it is reported that at one of these State teachers' colleges, which is sup­posed to have accommodations for 800 students, there are now less than 300 students actually enrolled. Notwithstanding this fact, one year ago four new buildings were being erected on the campus of that institution. At the privately supported liberal arts colleges of America there are enrolled more than 600,000 students, a large per­centage of whom are preparing to teach. These privately supported colleges, together with the normal schools and the State teachers' colleges, are able to supply the need for public-school teachers. In fact, it appears that there are more teachers available than there are positions. Some years ago in one State there were 10,000 more applicants for positions than there were vacancies. The already overburdened taxpayer does not understand why millions of dollars should be spent for increased and enlarged teacher-training facilities when there appears to be an oversupply of teachers. Even if we assume that there is need for more public-school teachers than are now being produced by the colleges, we must face the fact that the colleges now in existence, both tax supported and privately supported, are in a position to accept larger enrollments, thereby increasing the number of possible teachers, without the cost of build­ing programs and the establishment of new institutions. In the State of Pennsylvania, where there are 13 State teachers' colleges, an interesting study has been made of the efficiency . of the high-school teachers, with respect to the type of institution where they were trained. Testimony from 145 high-school principals, rep­resenting 5·7 counties, indicates that of those having a single prefer­ence, 52 per cent preferre~ a liberal-arts-college graduate, as compared with 19.5 per cent who favored a State teachers-college graduate. The relative efficiency of 696 liberal-arts-college graduates and 236 teachers-college graduates was indicated by 177 high-school prin­cipals, who judged 68.4 per cent of the liberal-arts-college graduates above the average high-school teachers, and 61 per cent of the teachers-college graduates above the average. These principals judged 16.5 per cent of the former as compared with 28.8 of the latter below the average high-school teacher, giving an advantage of 19.3 per cent to the liberal-arts-college graduate. Another study was made of "important teacher qualifications," such as scholarship, methods, progressiveness, personality, and ability to secure results. In all these items the graduates of liberal-arts colleges rank higher in percentage rating than the graduates of teachers colleges, with the only exception of that of methods, and even there the opinions of the principals were closely balanced between the two classes. It must be understood that the liberal-arts colleges, both independ­ent and church-related, are preparing each year hundreds of thou­sands of public high-school teachers, without a cent of expense to their respective States and the Federal Government. For example, it is estimated that more than 85 per cent of the 17,628 teachers now in the public high schools of the State of Pennsylvania are products of Pennsylvania liberal-arts colleges. Tend to Destroy Independent Institutions Our dual system of education, in which there are both tax-supported and privately supported colleges and universities, has meant much to the development of American education. Both State and Federal Governments have benefited by the courageous criticisms which have come from the professors in non-State educational institutions. In fact, leaders in State educational institutions are beginning to rec­ognize their inability to point out frankly the evils in their State Governments. President Ruthven, of the University of Michigan, in an address before the American Council on Education, warned the educators a couple of years ago against "the spreading blight of po­litical control" and "the strings attached to the easy money of Federal subsidies." If the Federal and State Governments lavishly pour funds into State colleges and universities, the privately supported educational institutions will not be able to compete with them. There would result a wholesale closing of the church-related colleges, which have been so effective in producing leadership in all phases of American life. In fact, a study of the situation in Pennsylvania recently revealed the following: "All of the directors and chief executives of the present depart­ment of public instruction are graduates of liberal-arts colleges." "All the presidents of the thirteen State teachers colleges are gradu­ates of liberal-arts colleges, some of whom have the Ph.D. degree." "The members of the faculty of the State teachers colleges almost without exception have taken undergraduate or graduate training in the liberal-arts colleges and universities." "Fifty-five out of sixty-five County Superintendents in Pennsyl­vania, and three-fourths of the Assistant County Superintendents, are liberal-arts-college graduates." "More than 90 per cent of the supervising principals in the State are Pennsylvania College graduates." "The principals of the high schools and elementary schools are in overwhelming majority graduates of liberal-arts colleges." Will the Federal Government participate in a program which will destroy the hen which appears to be laying the golden eggs? More Religion, Not More Education Needed The culture of ancient Greece ii a landmark of history, but educa­tion did not prevent the fall of Greece. To the universities of Germany have gone students from all parts of the world, but the universities of Germany were not able to prevent the tragic events of that land. One hundred years ago Horace Mann called upon the American people to expand our public-school system, with the proph­ecy that nine-tenths of our crime would disappear. The American people have responded nobly and yet in spite of our great public­school system our crime has increased during the past hundred years more than 500 per cent. Education to be effective must not neglect the most important phase of the child's inheritance, namely, religion. The cultivation of the intellect is not sufficient. Apart from religion, education, in the words of Cardinal Newman in his "Idea of a University," gives "no command over the passions, no influential motives, no vivifying prin­ciples." If American civilization is to be saved from the revolutionary and destructive forces now at work in the world, our Federal Govern­ment dare not take any step which will hamper and perhaps destroy the church's educational program. Through that program the church would produce a leadership with Christian ideals and motivation to direct the affairs of business, industry, government, and education. MY OBJECTIONS TO THE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE ACT OF 1941 By George W. Robnett, Executive Secretary, The Church League of America (From Hearings on S. 1313, 1941, p. 227ff.) Before I discuss this bill [S. 1313], called the Educational Finance Act of 1941, and venture some views in connection with it, I should like to refer briefly to the pathway that has led up to the introduc­tion of this particular bill. In 1932 there came into power in this country a leadership which used every means at its command to accomplish legislative changes that would greatly increase the power of the executive branch of our Federal Government. Along with this increased power and the at­tempt to prime the pump of a national economy by opening the sluice gates of the Federal Treasury, there came into existence nat­urally a vast bureaucracy. Based on Marxian Philosophy Dr. Reeves brought to this task the attitude and convictions of a pedagogue who was already highly steeped in the social emphasis that has made deep inroads in education, largely as the development of the John Dewey school of Marxian philosophy. Dr. Reeves, as an educator affiliated with the leftish University of Chicago, was a logical candidate for a job with the new Government's socialistic experiment known as the T.V.A. After his participation in this highly controversial adventure, the President selected him as the right man to head the committee that was to search for new ways to spend borrowed money in the field of education. At a heavy cost to the taxpayers this investigation was carried on over a period of more than a year and resulted in a large printed tome of findings and suggestions. This report served as the base for the widely protested Harrison-Thomas-Fletcher Bill introduced in the 1938 session of Congress. It reached the Senate Calendar but no action was taken by the House. The proponents of federalizing our public schools came back in 1939 with a slightly changed and more highly polished bill introduced in the House by Congressman Larabee as H. R. 3517 and supported in the Senate by S. 1305, fathered by Senators Thomas and Harrison. This bill was supported in testimony by an alignment of groups well known for their ideological sympathies that immediately brought it under suspicion by those substantial citizens and educators who, by mere accident, had learned that such a revolutionary bill was pending. Federal Control Unavoidable In speaking of that bill before a meeting of leading citizens in Chicago, Dr. Donald J. Cowling, president of Carleton College, a former president of the Association of American Colleges and the first head of the American Council on Education here in Washing­ton, said: "This bill will bring every Department of Education of the United States under the control of the Federal administration in Washington. There are certain educational organizations including the National Education Association that have approved this bill but they have stated that they do not want Federal control over our public schools. That avoidance is impossible. This bill would mean Federal control." This bill, S. 1305, to which President Cowling referred in that speech, is in essence the same bill as that now advanced as S. 1313 .... There are four particular new features in S. 1313. First is the amount of money involved. S. 1305 called for an expenditure of approximately $1,000,000,000 over a period of six years in a purported attempt to "equalize educational opportunities." The present bill cuts loose from time limit and provides for a Federal expenditure of $300,000,000 a year which in ten years would be $3,000,000,000. How­ever, in the nature of things, we could safely assume that within five years excuses would be brought forward materially to increase this annual appropriation. I think some of the testimony given here already before this com­mittee would indicate that there is going to be a tremendous demand for its application in many ways and in many communities. Equalization of Educational Opportunity 233 The second new feature we perceive is an attempt to use an extra leverage to force the bill through by stating repeatedly that it is to benefit--"children residing in rural areas, children residing on Federal properties and reservations, and the children of migratory workers," but in no way is any attempt even made to explain what this all means. The truth is that this means, in the main and in contrast, exactly nothing, but is a technique in the new art of semantics intended to confuse and deceive. This is a substitute performance for the use in the old bill of the persuasive words "national emergency." Appeals to Class Prejudice The third new feature that distinguished S. 1313 is its use of the new politico-socio-reformer technique by which a ruthless appeal is made to class prejudice. I will refer again to this in analyzing the bill. The fourth feature which is new in this bill, as contrasted with S. 1305, is a direct slap at the Southern States with a brazen attempt to accomplish social and class legislation under the guise of aiding education..•. We find, in section 2, the use of that great delusion by which always free men are ensnared. It reads: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress, without Federal control over the educational policies of the States and local­ities .•• " It is difficult to imagine anyone as seasoned and astute in political ways as those who give their name to the bill being willing to jeop­ardize their own intellectual integrity by indulging in such futilities of rhetoric as the statement "without Federal control" when the bill is simply gorged with control entrapment. Section 2 also states that: "this Act shall be so construed as to maintain local and State initia­tive and responsibility in the conduct of education and to reserve the control over processes of education, the control and determina­tion of curricula of the schools, the methods of instruction to be em­ ployed, ..." And so forth. Political Control Again we refer to the fact that the bill is laden with political control devices but we call your particular attention to the conditions under which those who receive this money must qualify. It is this matter of "qualifying" and the qualifying requirements as set forth in the bill that disputes all the sugary words intended to dispel the fears of those who want money but are just a little fearful of the harness that always goes with money. We point especially to para­graph E of clause 1 of section 6 which explicitly states that the State The University of Texas Publication educational authority, in order to get funds must make reports to the Federal Commissioner in such forms and containing such infor­mation "as the Commissioner may require." Does anyone doubt the political implications or the political power involved in that one requirement? In this connection we point also to clause b of section 11 which reads: "The Commissioner shall, as far as feasible, lend such advice and counsel as the States may request in working out legislative or administrative plans for expenditure of funds received through this Act ... " With politicians and bureaucrats what they are in these turbulent times, can any politically sophisticated person bring himself to believe that this would be interpreted in any other manner than as a man­date to dictate the manner in which the funds were to be distributed? The funds to be allocated to the States and the communities through these highly politically controlled channels are referred to in section 7 as "in order effectively to reduce inequalities of educa­ tional opportunity" and in section 11 the statement is used-"as most effectively to lessen inequalities of education opportunities." By what measures and weights or by whose great wisdom are these "inequalities" to be estimated? Is it not true that the word "inequal­ ities" is so meaningless, and so vulnerable to political misinterpreta­ tion, that its use in this bill is both abortive and dangerous? If the purpose of this bill is to accomplish so-called "equality in educational opportunities" then is it not true that every State must qualify in order to make the scheme applicable to its purpose? Sup­ pose that only one-third of the States decide to qualify and these happen to be the States least needing aid, then have you not done more harm than good to the situation as it now exists? In other words, is not the whole scheme dangerously full of dynamite? Let us examine for a moment the loosely designated individuals whom this bill is supposed to help. It mentions-"children residing in rural areas, children residing on Federal properties and reservations, and the children of migratory workers." One wonders just how the plan is to keep up with migratory workers -who presumably do a great deal of moving about. One is led also to ask if this reference to children residing on Federal properties anticipates the day when most of our farms and industrial properties will be Government-owned as they are in Russia. Con­ cerning the children in rural areas, I wish to suggest emphatically that the farmers in the rural sections which may be properly desig­ nated as submarginal land areas are facing, not a social or educa­ tional problem nearly as much as they are facing an economic crisis. What they need is not more government spending which will increase their taxes but less tax load so they will have more money to spend. I was born in such an area and I walked a mile down muddy roads to a little one-room school. I still own that old clay hill farm and I know what the other farmers all around me are facing today. They do not need more Federal money for schools. They need less bureaucracy and less government overhead. The children are faring better in most of those submarginal areas today than are many of the school children in large cities. In Chicago, for instance, we have hundreds of children crowded into small portable metal build­ings where they suffer from heat in hot weather and from cold in severe winter weather. These city children have no playgrounds like the kids do in these rural areas where they can roam at will. Minority Races Now we come to another objectionable feature of this bill which is implied several times with a reference to equalizing educational opportunities for "minority races." This must be construed as an attempt through subterfuge to accomplish social legislation in line with the new order of things. It presumes that at least some local communities are not dealing with this matter as the proponents of this bill would have them deal with it. It can hardly be doubted that the reference is to Negroes and their status in the South. This is obviously an attempt to place the Federal Government in ~ position to compel States or communities to treat certain matters "as the Commissioner may require."... Control Again I call attention also to clause (a) of section 13 which is just to mention another line of political control where the bill provides­ "The Commissioner . . . is authorized to make such rules and regu­lations • . . as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act." This bill, in my opinion and that of many educators and citizens with whom I have 'talked, should not become law. We are, in this country, now tremendously concerned and over­whelmed with a national defense program that is entitled to our complete efforts. No one knows how much money this national de­fense program will require. During the last several years we have engaged upon a Federal spending spree that has brought our national debt to its legal limit at the very time when we need to spend bil­lions more to protect our national security. Certainly this is no time to enter into further radical experiments that call for huge sums of money and which adventure would be so fraught with perils to our traditional American system. That this experiment as organized under S. 1313 would be dangerous I have attempted here to show. There was one thing that was called to my attention here a moment before, I mean by some of the testimony that went in before here, and that is that this bill is apparently going to be used as much for the benefit of the teachers as it is for the benefit of the pupils. understood it was for school children, but one of the men who pre­ceded me here testified almost entirely how it was going to raise the teachers' salaries. I was tremendously impressed with that testimony. ADMINISTRATION OF EDUCATION IN ITALY By I. L. Kandel, Professor of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University (From I. L. Kandel, Comparative Education, 1933, pp. 305-308. Reprinted by permission.) The cost of education is borne by the State, the provinces, and the communes, but under conditions that vary for elementary and second­ary education and for autonomous and dependent communes. All communes are required to provide suitable sites and adequate build­ings for elementary schools together with heat, light, service, equip­ment, and school supplies. Under the Casati Law all communes were autonomous and were required to meet all the expenses for education, but received some aid from the State; as salaries and the length of schooling increased, the State assumed a larger percentage of the cost. The grants varied from year to year according to the number of schools maintained and the ability of the communes. In 1911 the various grants were consolidated and the State undertook to pay a fixed sum to the communes each year; in 1920 this principle was reafll..rmed, but as salaries were increased, the dependent com­munes were required to make a fixed contribution of 800 lire a year toward the salary of each teacher. The amount of this contribution is subject to revision every five years by the Mj.nistry of Education in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance. The cost of services supplementary to elementary education, such as infant schools, com­mittees of patronage, libraries for schools, the public, and the teachers, and social services, are supported by State grants made on the recom­mendation of the provveditori. The autonomous communes until 1931 bore the cost of maintaining their schools with contributions from the State; by royal decree of September 14, 1931, the State assumed the burdens borne by the local budgets of such communes for salaries and indemnities to teachers in order to systematize the conditions for all the personnel. This means that such communes must provide a sum annually to pay the salaries of the teachers according to the prevailing scale and for the number of teachers recognized as ade­ quate by the Ministry of Education, and in addition a percentage of the remaining charges according to a prescribed scale. The scale published in 1928 provided for contributions from the State to the 205 autonomous communes then recognized, ranging from 40 per cent in Brescia to 82 per cent in Cefalu, Sicily. The practice is reversed in the case of the dependent communes, in which the State provides for the maintenance of schools with contributions from the communes toward teachers' salaries. All communes and recognized associations are required to provide buildings, the plans for which must be accepted by the provveditore acting on the advice of the engineering and health departments of the region and approved by the Ministries of Education and of Public Works. A teacher's residence must be attached to a school in rural communes where no other living accommodations are available. In order to purchase sites and erect school buildings, communes may borrow money from the National Loan and Deposit Fund or from agricultural credit banks or from savings banks. Interest charges on such loans are met by grants from the Ministry of National Edu­cation cooperating with the Ministry of Finance; the payments for amortization must be provided for in the local budgets. The State, the provinces, and communes cooperate in the provision and maintenance of secondary schools. The State pays the salaries of principals and teachers and of the clerical staff in liceiginnasi and istituti magistrali, and in the backward provinces of Basilicate and Sardinia in istituti tecnici and scuole co1wplementari; it also provides materials for instruction and scientific equipment in all schools except licei scientifici. The provinces are required to contribute to the main­tenance of licei scientifici and istituti tecnici and the communes to the maintenance of all other types of secondary schools not already provided for ( e. g., scuole complementari and licei f emniinili). This means that in their respective fields the provinces and communes must provide the buildings, equipment, heat, light, and all other expenses, and the clerical and mechanical staff, assistants and janitors, where not provided by the State. In the licei scientifici and istituti tecnici the province supplies the instructional and scientific materials. Under the regulations of the royal decrees of March 11, 1923, and June 7, 1923, all communes are required to make certain contributions vary­ing with the size of the locality and the types of schools which they may provide. Institutions which must be established are the licei­ginnasi in provincial capitals and the istituti tecnici in provincial capitals or some other communes; all istituti magistmli; the scuole complementari in provincial capitals or other communes with a popu­lation exceeding 30,000; optional schools are all other types, like the licei scientifici and licei f emminili. The relative distribution of State and local expenditures for education may be indicated roughly for purposes of comparison; the State expenditure for 1928-29 was The University of Texas Publication 1,394,000,000 lire, while in 1928 the local expenditure was 605,842,000 lire. The Italian system of educational administration is thus highly centralized on the principle that the State has the right to determine the educational destinies of the country in the light of the political and social principles upon which it rests. In so far as there is decen­tralization, it exists in the interests of efficiency; administrative efficiency and local administration are but an extension of the powers of the central authority through officials whom it appoints directly either on the basis of competitive examinations open to candidates who are professionally qualified or by selection for the highest p9si­tions; e. g., the provveditori agli studi from ·persons of recognized qualifications and experience. The provveditori are in turn assisted by councils whose membership is made up of individuals who have professional qualifications. In this sc4eme no place is provided for popularly elected boards or committees, a situation due only in part to the inefficiency of such bodies in the past and more directly the logical consequence of the Fascist ideology. This principle is car­ried still further in the care which is taken in selecting teachers, who must in the first place prove their competence through competi­tive examinations, and in the second place must be acceptable to the Fascist regime. Although teachers in elementary and secondary schools are not required to take the same oath of loyalty to Fascism as are university professors, it is certainly expected that they will not be critical of the established social order. The rigor of centralization is more apparent on the surface than in practice. For, although everything seems to be carefully regulated from above by the central authority in the interests of administra­tive efficiency, and although care is taken in securing teachers who are amenable, in practice adequate room is allowed for self-determi­nation in professional matters. The central authority not only encour­ages the selection of schools to conduct experiments in schools below the secondary level, but the courses of study are issued in the form of suggestions, and adequate scope is left for variety and adaptation to local conditions within the constituted form of the social order. As will be seen, particularly in the chapter on Elementary Education, the work of the preelementary and elementary schools is based on activity principles, the essential features of which are adaptation and freedom. There is thus an apparent paradox, which is expli­cable; politically the schools are not free, educationally they are--a situation which is also found under the Soviet system. The paradox is due to the merging in Fascism of two main ideas-the political and the cultural. From the point of view of political philosophy, Fascism is based on the Hegelian idea of the absolutist state; from the point of view of educational philosophy, as represented by Gentile and Lombardo-Radice, but with different interpretations, individual development is only possible through activity built up on the environ­ment, and national culture is not something which can be defined from a central office, but is itself living and growing. For Gentile the individual should be active, growing, and self-determining, but within the limits set by the collective will or the social order; to Lombardo-Radice the acceptance of any limitations to growth was incompatible with the true meaning of the new educational philosophy. Hence for Gentile the state is omnipotent and the administration of its functions must be centralized and built up on the hierarchical principle; Lombardo-Radice, and with him the largest teachers' asso­ciation, before it had been transformed into a fascist union (Associa­zione Fascista della Scuola), favored decentralization, not merely to insure administrative authority, but to encourage self-determination and growth of national culture through the interplay of social forces from the bottom up,-that is, from the local units in enjoyment of autonomy. Such an attitude is, however, diametrically opposed to the principles underlying the Fascist State, which was definitely established as a criticism of the democratic forms of government. For the present Fascism can point to the efficiency of its system as illustrated by the increased expenditures, the reduction of illiteracy, the increase of schools and attendance, and the provision of a greater variety of schools and educational opportunities than existed before the Revolution. BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL (Editorial, Chicago Tribune, March 7, 1939, quoted in Bea.rings on S. 1305. 1939, p. 283. Reprinted by permission.) A bill has been introduced in the Senate to appropriate $70,000,000 this year to subsidize education in the various States. The $70,000,000 is only a starter. The bill recommends a gradual increase in the annual grant until in 1944 the distributive fund will amount to $199,000,000. The program calls for appropriation totaling $800,000,000 in the next six years in addition to present Federal aids to education. Congressman Church, of Evanston, has attacked the bill at one of its more vulnerable points. The money is to be given to a State only after the Office of Education has approved the purposes for which the State intends to spend the grant. Mr. Church is alarmed lest this power be used to establish Federal control over public educa­tion throughout the country. As he says, it is better that the edu­cational authorities of the States make mistakes than that education fall into the hands of the Central Government as it has in the totali­tarian states. The bill discloses the Federal bureaucracy already reaching out for the power to determine how the money shall be spent. Regulation of the curriculum is only one step further. The capture of the schools by political propagandists is clearly foreshadowed. The Administration in Washington prates of its devotion to democ­racy, but here again, as at so many other points, the influence of the Administration is being exerted to undermine and destroy demo­cratic institutions in this country. If the States and local govern­ments had denied responsibility for education there might be some excuse for Federal intervention. If the public schools were engaged in promoting disloyalty and disunion the Federal Government might be warranted in seeking to prevent such subversive activities. But nothing like that or remotely like that has happened or will happen. All that has happened is that the bureaucracy is lusting for power to dominate local governments and shape the minds of future citizens. The excuse is the low standard of schools in some of the States and some of the schools in all the States. It is said that certain States and certain school districts are too poor to provide better educa­tional facilities. The argument will not bear examination. There is no State so poor that it cannot increase its school appropriations if it wants to. There are few, if any, localities in this country so poor that they cannot scrape up more money for education; and where such communities exist, the responsibility for improving their schools rests upon their State Governments, not upon the Federal Government. Incidentally, it is not true that financially poor areas must have educationally poor schools. In proportion to population, there are more natives of Vermont listed in Who's Who than any other State. If Federal domination of the Nation's educational systems becomes a fact the worst schools may be somewhat improved, but all schools, the good and the bad alike, will become instruments for any propa­ganda which the commissars or fuehrers in Washington wish to disseminate. The possibilities of gain are small; the possibilities of damage to the cause of liberty are stupendous. S. 1313 WILL RESULT IN FEDERAL CONTROL By Major General Amos A. Fries, Regional Director, Friends of the Public Schools of America (From Hearings on S. 1313, 1941, p, 190ff.) As showing further how Federal control will come about we note that those States that set up a plan must provide for (see section 6)­"an adequate system of auditing by the State educational authority of the expenditure of funds received and apportioned to local school jurisdictions, or other State educational agencies, and for an adequate system of reports from local school jurisdictions and other educa­tional agencies of the State to such authority," and-also-"the State educational authority shall make such reports to the Commissioner with respect to the expenditure of funds received and the progress of education generally in such form and containing such information as the Commissioner may require." These provisos give the Commissioner of Education broad powers to decide what is the proper auditing system, what is an adequate system of reports, and then to prescribe the form and information that the reports must contain. This would be a tremendous power for forcing reports which the Commissioner of Education wants, and in that way help bring the State boards of education into line. Then there is the proviso just mentioned, for "a just and equitable appor­tionment . . . maintained for minority races," etc. Indeed, through­out the bill there is tremendous emphasis placed upon "minority races," all of which tends to create ill feeling between the Negro and the white (the Negro being the principal minority race within the confines of the United States). There is also Federal control through a peculiar proviso in this, as in preceding bills, of which little has been said-that is, under section 6, paragraph (b), there is the statement that the States cannot receive any part of this Federal money in any year unless in the preceding fiscal year the States-"have provided from State revenues for all public elementary-and secondary-school purposes a total not less than the total amount spent for such purposes in the fiscal year ended in 1940." That is, the bill proposes to increase the total cost in the United States for public elementary-and secondary-school purposes through­ out the Union by $300,000,000 per year, over what the Nation spent in the fiscal year 1940. Millions for Commissioner to Do With as He Pleases The Commissioner of Education has $9,000,000 annually at his personal disposal with which to influence boards of education. Sec­ tion 4, which states in general terms the purposes for which the Board "shall allot" money, has as the final item this, "and not to exceed 2 per centum of such amount shall be used for the expenses of the State Departments of Education." Now, 2 per cent of $300,000,000 is $6,000,000 annually if the maxi­ mum appropriation be made. Six million dollars would amount to an average of $120,000 for each State Department of Education if fifty departments received funds. One hundred and twenty thousand dollars is a lot of money for just supporting a State Board of Education. Then section 11 (a) provides for a separate appropriation "For administration and research," under the Commissioner of Educa­tion, as follows: "for each fiscal year an amount equal to 1 per centum of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year under the provisions of section 3 of this Act." Now, 1 per centum of $300,000,000 is $3,000,000 and that is­"for services and other expenses necessary to the administration of the Act, and for the making of necessary surveys and other studies in connection with the best utilization of the grants to States author­ized in this Act." Three million dollars a year would permit the Commissioner of Education to do a lot of surveying and administering. There is also a proviso in this section that­ "Such allocations shall be made by joint agreement between the Commissioner and the chief State educational authority." And then follows, under subparagraph (b), this: "The Commissioner shall, so far as feasible, lend such advice and counsel as the States may request in working out legislative or administrative plans for expenditure of funds...." Everyone knows that the man who controls the money sits at the head of the table, and that control of an average for each State of $60,000 per year in this one item alone, to say nothing of the $120,00() previously referred to, would be a powerful argument in support of the ideas of the Commissioner. Then we find under "Reporting," section 12: "The Commissioner shall publish annually a full and complete report showing accurately the status of education in the United States." And then follows the further statement that­ "Each such report shall include an analysis and summary of the legislative and administrative provisions adopted by each State . . • and also statistical information showing the degree to which each of the States has accomplished the improvement and equalization of educational opportunity in comparison with previous years.•. . " In this and in many other similar provisos previously mentioned, the Commissioner of Education, through reports, control of funds, advice, and expenditure of money, and in tenure of office of the employees of State boards of education that must depend more or less upon Federal money for positions, the Commissioner has the power to more or less regiment the schools of all States in regard to the improvement of those schools, textbooks, teachers, and curricula. As to further showing the power that will be in the office of the Commissioner, we find under "Miscellaneous," section 13 (a) this­"The Commissioner, subject to the approval of the Federal Security Administrator, is authorized to make such rules and regulations, not in conflict with the provisions of this Act, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act." In a very large way the Commissioner of Education will be his own authority when deciding whether the rules or regulations he pro­mulgated are in conflict with the provisions of this act. Of course, the Federal Security Administrator may disapprove of what. the Commissioner proposes and an appeal to Congress or the courts might change other things. Likewise, it may be said that similar authority is exercised by many heads of departments, so such author­ity does not sound unusual, but this bill is a "general" financial-aid­to-education bill, or as many consider it, a Federal-control-of­education bill in which there are no precedents to go on and where general rules and regulations must be built up affecting all the children of the Nation. There is no suggestion in these remarks that the present Com­missioner of Education would try to seize control or carry out political propaganda, but we submit that the power to do so would be there and that such power should not be made possible for any individual to wield. NO FEDERAL AID NOW By Reverend George Johnson, Director of Department of Education, National Catholic Welfare Conference (From Hearings on S. 1306, 1939, pp. 193-196.) To begin with, the position of the National Catholic Welfare Con­ference with regard to anything that threatens Federal control of education, has been made abundantly clear, time and time again. The fundamental and natural right to direct and control the educa­tion of the young is vested in the family and this right the Govern­ment dare not usurp nor substantially invade. The American in­stinct for the preservation of liberty and the sacredness of the individual personality, has brought about the establishment of a system of education in this country, that is locally controlled, that is to say, under the immediate guidance of those whose children attend the schools. Any movement that would remove the control of education from local communities and vest it in an authority as far away from the intimate concerns of the home whence the children come, as is the Federal Government, would not only be contrary to our national traditions, but would augur ill for the future of free government in these United States. The University of Texas Publication Totalitarian Tendency In these days, when we see so dramatically how the centralization of power and the emergence of the omnicompetent state degrades the human personality and causes distress among nations, we should be very tardy indeed, when it comes to adopting measures, however promising may seem their immediate results, that would limit the sphere of self-government, wherein our vigor as a Nation has been nurtured, while the character of the individual citizen has been afforded the opportunity to develop and grow strong. That we should be beset with the fear lest any measure of Federal financial support of education might imply just that much Federal control, is understandable. The Federal Government cannot appro­priate money without some assurance that the money so appropriated will be spent for the purposes that were intended. It cannot spend money without some guarantee that the ends contemplated by the Congress will be achieved. It may be argued, that as far as the field of education is concerned, such fears are unfounded, that the tradition of local control is so deeply rooted that it cannot be dis­turbed. Be that as it may, the experience of the past twenty years, particularly as it is revealed in the history of Federal aid for voca­tional education, is none too reassuring. The bill here under consideration, based as it is on the report of the Advisory Committee on Education, endeavors. to obviate the danger of Federal control. It makes it clear that its intent is to safeguard local initiative and control; it reserves explicitly to the States and their local subdivisions, the administration of schools, the control over the processes of education, the determination of curricula, of methods of instruction, and the selection of personnel, and the determination, within the provisions of the act, of the best uses of the funds determined. Yet under each title there are stipulations regarding apportionment and availability of funds, reporting, coun­seling, and auditing, which lodge considerable discretion in the hands of a Federal agency. It is assumed that this discretion will be used wisely. Perhaps it will be, as similar discretion has been used wisely by Federal agencies in other connections. Perhaps it will be used with no greater wisdom than has been the case with the administration of vocational education. After all, laws are administered by human beings, whose very zeal oftentimes causes them to overextend their authority. There is a risk here, and it may be that it is a risk that the American people should take. No informed person can gainsay the fact that there are glaring inequalities of educational opportunity here in the United States that millions of children are being deprived of their right to a decent schooling. There is no reason for the Nation as a whole to be concerned about this situation. It has been giving evidence of this concern, these last years, by spending up­ward of $400,000,000 annually for education through the Public Works Administration, the Works Progress Administration, the National Youth Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps. It may be objected that these are emergency measures, palliatives, which do not reach to the heart of the difficulty. The same may be said of the measure here under consideration. After all, the causes that lead to inequality of educational opportunity are very deep-seated; they are fundamentally industrial and economic. They will not be much affected by larger expenditures of money for edu­cation. On the other hand, if the economic condition of the peoples in the poorer States could be measurably bettered, there would be no need for Federal aid for education. This Bill Not a Cure Because there is no prospect of such betterment in the immediate future and because childhood and youth has but one chance for preparation for the responsibilities of adult living, it would seem that we as a Nation have no alternative save to come to the rescue of those sections of the country that with the best will in the world cannot help themselves. This would not justify, however, general grants in aid to all the States in the Union. Then, too, the danger of Federal control must be minimized, while at the same time the Federal Government must do something to insure that the money it distributes will be spent effectively. Based on the report of the Advisory Committee, the present bill has much to recommend it. Ther.e are certain realities, however, that it was not within the competence of the Advisory Committee to face. These have to do mainly with the source of funds for a program such as is here contemplated. There are certain first things that must come first, like feeding the hungry, providing work for the unemployed, providing adequately for the national defense. This is not to minimize in the slightest degree the vital importance of education for the preservation of the values of democratic living. As a Nation we cannot afford too much lack of schooling. Yet where there is hunger and homelessness and inadequate clothing, or immi­nent danger of war, education cannot be made properly effective. LET'S STOP THIS "FIFTY-FIFTY" BUSINESS By James W. Wadsworth, Senator from New York, 1915-1927 (From Nation's Business, March, 1926, pp. 23-24. Reprinted by permission.) The "fifty-fifty" system of Federal aid to the States, in its modern lavish form, had its inception in 1914. Its beginning was modest enough. In that year, Congress enacted the Smith-Lever Law, which has for its purpose the promotion of cooperative agricultural exten­sion work. The appropriation carried in the bill for the first year of its opera­tion was $480,000, to be divided equally among the 48 States on condition that their Legislatures appropriate an equal amount for c~rrying on the work of educating their citizens in agriculture and home economics. The next step was the Federal Good Roads Bill of 1916, for which the first year's appropriation was $5,000,000. From these lowly origins, the growth of the subsidy system has been nothing short of astonishing. It has been like the proverbial snowball rolling downhill. Its popularity, particularly among western and southern members of Congress, has been immense. Time Has Come to Take Stock Its ramifications have taken many different directions from road building to teaching mothers how to care for their infants. Today, its inroads on the Federal Treasury have reached the enormous total of $110,000,000 annually, which, of course, requires substan­tially an equal outlay from the States, so that the total cost of the system to the tax-paying public is well over $200,000,000 a year. The time has come, in my opinion, to take stock, and to get a clear understanding as to where we are headed. I do not contend that the subsidy system is wrong in every detail or that it ought to be abolished entirely. There may be some functions performed under it which can be done better bY. the Federal Government than the States. But I do believe that it could and should be radically curbed both in the interest of economy and sound policy and that steps should be taken to place a check upon its growth before it under­ mines our whole system of dual sovereignty of the State and Nation. I hear now of a movement to get $100,000,000 annually from the Federal Government for the purpose of promoting education in the various States on the "fifty-fifty" plan. A certain organization is placarding the Nation with a slogan to stimulate a campaign for the construction and maintenance of 250,000 miles of good roads "by the Federal Government." One of my colleagues says he would like to see the Federal appro­ priation for good roads doubled, making it about $160,000,000 annually, so that the National Government would then relieve the States entirely of the payment of their 50 per cent of the roads expenditures. A decent regard for the capacity of the Federal Treasury and of the principle of local self-government, if it is not to become wholly obsolete, requires that we learn soon where the extension of this expensive form of Federal encroachment on State responsibility may be expected to end. During the last session, I tried to get the Senate to approve an amendment calling for a statement of the ends sought in the Federal good roads program. The amendment directed the Secretary of Agriculture to have pre­pared, in cooperation with the appropriate State authorities, a map or plan outlining the system of post roads which, in his judgment, should be improved under the Federal aid system, and to submit that map or plan to Congress together with estimates as to the cost and the period of time necessary for the completion of the work. We Ought to Have Some Plan I contended, and still contend, that Congress is entitled to know what is contemplated for the future, how much it will cost and how long it will take. If we are to go on expending $80,000,000 or $90,000,000 or even more a year we ought to have some plan on which to build and that plan ought to be before Congress so that we will know not only where we start but where we are going. Strangely enough, that amendment was voted down. It was op­ posed on the ground that it might be construed in some way as calling a halt on future appropriations. The ardent advocates of the subsidy system apparently didn't want to know where we are headed. There are five main forms of Federal subsidies: Highway con­ struction (Act of July 11, 1916); agricultural extension (Smith­ Lever Act of May 8, 1914; vocational education (Act of February 23, 1917); vocational rehabilitation (Act of June 3, 1920); and maternity and infant hygiene (Act of November 23, 1921). During the fiscal year 1924 (the last one for which completed figures are available) the Department of Agriculture, by authority of Congress, of course, disbursed $98, 790,595.19 in various forms of subsidies. The disbursements for road construction were approxi­ mately $90,000,000. Expenditures for vocational education were $6,412,143.40; for agricultural extension, $5,820,816.89; and promo­ tion of welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy, $720,694.79. These disbursements, with numerous smaller doles, brought the total for the year up to $110,377,443.68. No less than $80,000,000 is needed to carry out the highway construction plans for next year and still another $116,700,000 will be required to discharge additional obligations already incurred under the same head. The Way Some States Pay An interesting feature of the system is the manner in which some States are called upon to pay the great proportion of this outlay, from which they receive only a minute share in return. A few instances will serve to illustrate the point. The State of Nevada pays into the Federal Treasury $760,000 annually, and receives in subsidies $1,845,945, or 262 per cent of the amount it contributed to the maintenance of the Federal Government. North Dakota pays in $1,282,838 and takes out $1,487,859. South Dakota pays $1,951,248 and gets in return $2,094,133. Contrast this with the case of Pennsylvania, which pays in $269,000,000 to the Federal Treasury and receives in return $1,839,000 or about 0.7 per cent. New Jersey pays in $112,000,000 and takes out $652,000 or 0.58 per cent. Connecticut fares still worse. It pays in $37 ,000,000 and gets back $201,000 or 0.54 per cent. The representatives of the Western States have a ready answer for this. They say that the Federal Government holds vast areas in the public domain within their borders and hence it is only fair that the National Government should contribute a large share to the improvements and expenses in those States. But there is an answer to that. Under the Federal Forest Fund Act of 1907, 25 per cent of the gross revenues from timber sales, live-stock privileges, and other uses of the forest reserves go back to the States within which the reserves are located for schools and roads and 10 per cent for forest trails and roads. In addition to this, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides for the payment of 371h per cent of bonus and royalties on those reserves. Under these two acts, refunds to the St.ates are more than $16,000,000, of which eleven Western States get $14,000,000, leaving less than $2,000,000 to be divided among the other thirty-seven States. Some of the States get absolutely nothing. Wyoming gets $5,143,434, an amount equal to 246 per cent of the amount of Federal t.axes it pays into the Treasury. When the sub­sidies are added to this amount, Wyoming receives from the Federal Government $6,491,285. Its contribution to Federal taxes is $2,088,353. The amount of the subsidies and refunds therefore is equal to 310 per cent of the State's contribution to the National Government. On the other hand, take the case of the State of New York. Its share of the Federal t.ax burden is $690,415,425, and it receives in return $4,474,294. I am not objecting because New York does not receive more but it seems to me that the time has come to lay a restraining hand upon the practice of wet-nursing some States at the expense of others. But, questionable as these features of the system are, the most dangerous phase of it in my opinion is its tendency towards the breaking down of the principle of local self-government and the creation of an all-powerful Federal bureaucracy. The danger does not lie in the Federal aid system alone by any means. During the last fifteen years the Federal Government has undertaken the exercise of a large number of new and important functions. A scanning of the list of congressional enactments dur­ing this period reveals something of the situation. For example, since President Roosevelt left the White House on March 4, 1909, we have established the Federal Trade Commission with inquisitorial powers over every business concern engaged in interstate commerce. We have set up a Tariff Commission charged with the duty of investigating the costs of manufacturing at home and abroad and advising the President, and through him the Congress, as to the differences in those costs. We have created a Federal Farm Loan Board and given it authority to supervise the making of loans on farm lands all over the country. We have established a United States Shipping Board with its Emergency Fleet Corporation and have put the Government into the commercial shipping business, with results known to all. We have given important authority to the Secretary of Agriculture in connection with the operation of the grain exchanges. In this same period, by constitutional amendment we have given the Federal Government the right to impose taxes upon all incomes from what­ever source derived. And most important of all, through the adop­tion of the Eighteenth Amendment, we have given the Federal Government police power over every citizen to an extent undreamed of by the founders of the Government. This tremendous extension of Federal power, together with Federal aid development, has resulted in establishing at Washington, with branches all over the country, a vast governmental machinery, so powerful, so complicated, that the average citizen is utterly unable to comprehend it. Certainly, we should pause before we perm.it its further extension and enlargement. For if we continue this central­ization of power and this assumption of governmental functions, we shall most certainly smother the ability of our people to govern themselves in the several States and in their home communities. Too often we are tempted to hand over to the Federal Government the doing of those things which can be done perfectly well by the States and their subdivisions, because, for the moment, it seems the easiest way to relieve ourselves of the burden of local responsibility and the duty of living up to it. Our comparative success in governing ourselves for the past 150 years has rested most of all upon the initiative and enterprise of our people in meeting and solving governmental problems as 'they arise. If we continue to take power away from the people and to transfer it to Washington we shall destroy those qualities, our local govern­ments will dwindle to the vanishing point and we shall find the average man becoming a servant of the Government instead of its master. Let us remember that our country is a federal union of states, not an empire. Realizing as we must the dangers of a bureau­cracy, irresponsible and remote from our view, let us pause and survey our situation before we yield to its inducements. FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR EDUCATION By Alexander Inglis, Late Professor of Education, Harvard University (From Educatipaying Ability of State and Local Governments (1935). Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City. $1.00. Norton, John K., The Ability of the States to Support Education (1926). National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 50c. Norton, John K., Education and Economic Well-Being (1940). Edu­cational Policies Commission, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W ., Wash­ington, D. C. 50c. Norton, John K., Education and tke Federal Government (1926). National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 50c. Norton, John K., and Margaret Altucker Norton, Wealth, Children, and Education (1937). Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia, University, New York City. $2.00. Odum, Howard W., Southern Regions of the United States (1936). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N. C. $4.00. Pitkin, Royce Stanley, Public School Support in the United States During Periods of Economic Depression (1933). Stephen Daye Press, Brattleboro, Vt. $1.50. Pittenger, Benjamin Floyd, An Introduction to Public School Finance (1925). Houghton Mifflin, 2 Park Street, Boston, Mass. $2.00. Rainey, Homer Price, Public School Finance (1929). The Century Co., 35 West Thirty-second Street, New York City. $3.00. Rerisner, Edward H., Nationalism and Education Since 1789 (1922). Macmillan Co., 60 Fifth Avenue, New York City. $2.60. Russell, W. F., and B. B. Goodrich, Federal Government and the Financial Support (1934). National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. $1.00. Second Southern Policy Conference Report (1936). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N. C. 15c. Swift, Fletcher H., Federal and State Policies in Public School Finance in the United States (1931). Ginn & Co., 20 Providence Street, Boston, Mass. $3.80. Thompson, Walter, Federal Centralization (1923). Harcourt Brace & Co., 383 Madison Avenue, New York City. $2.75. Thornthwaite, C. Warren, Internal Migration in the Unite;<], States (1934). University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pa. $1.00. Waterman, I. R., Equalization of th.e Burden of Support for Educa­tion (1932). University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. $1.25. Watkins, Isabel, Federal Aid for Education (1924). Debate Hand­book. University of South Carolina Bulletin No. 136. Univer­sity of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C. Webb, Sidney, Grants in Aid: A Criticism and a Proposal (1920). The British System. Longmans, Green & Co., 55 Fifth A venue, New York City. $2.75. Webb, Walter P., Divided We Stand (1937). Farrar & Rinehart, 232 Madison A venue, New York City. $2.50. Weller, G. M., State Equalization of Capital Outlays for Public School Buildings (1940). University of Southern California, Los An­geles, Calif. $1.75. Wesley, Edgar Bruce, Proposed: the University of the United States (1936). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn. 75c. Wilkins, Eugene Grant, Public School Tax Management in Texas (1937). Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City. $1.60. III. AGENCIES WHICH MAY SUPPLY MATERIALS Educational Research Council, National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. Texas State Teachers Association, 410 East Weatherford Street, Fort Worth, Texas. Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Mr. Clifton H. Scott, President, Federal Education Legislative Agency, National Press Building, Washington, D. C. Affirmative. Major General Amos A. Fries, Friends of the Public Schools of America, 702 Albee Building, Fifteenth and G Streets, Washington, D. C. Negative.