Mr. ARPKE. That is quite true. And I tried to point out in the paper that it is very dangerous to overemphasize simply the migrant influence itself, because there are so many other things that have been taking place at the same time. The condition of general unemployment, for example, the changes in the income status of a county or the whole State, changes in the type of responsibility that the State shares for education or that the county shares in education. We have had some great changes in those things in California.

The following extract from the technical supplement to our report expresses the opinion of J. W. Studebaker, United States Commissioner of Education, and gives his suggestions for a possible solution:

The educational handicaps experienced by migrant children are described in later sections. In addition to the effect on educational advancement due to the migratory process itself, there is the problem of providing school facilities. This was pointed out by J. W. Studebaker, United States Commissioner of Education: "School budgets are invariably prepared early in the school year and taxes are levied shortly thereafter. If a fairly constant number of children of seasonal workers come into a school district at a definite time each year, that fact can be considered at the time of preparing the budget. On the other hand, if the number is not constant, or a very large number comes unexpectedly, the difficulty is obvious.

"Seasonal workers employed in the raising and harvesting of crops, move not only within States, but frequently from State to State. * *

*

"The problem of providing suitable building facilities in a district which has an influx of 200 migratory children for only 2 months each year is a special problem." In California, "State funds, not to exceed $75 per teacher, and an equal amount of county funds, may be used for salaries of teachers of migratory children whenever in the judgment of the county superintendent and county board of education such teacher or teachers are necessary." However, California is the only State with a law of this kind. Commissioner Studebaker further noted that under the national defense program a further financial problem has been created that is too burdensome even under the California arrangement.

"The funds provided for this purpose, however, are hardly sufficient for such extraordinary demands as required for the establishment and maintenance of schools for children of workers on the Mount Shasta Dam and for those of laborers on national-defense projects in the school district of Vallejo at the present time. No other State has a provision of law similar to this."

The following possible solution was suggested by Commissioner Studebaker: "1. A definite policy which includes:

"(a) Residence of pupils: Provision for the schooling of childern irrespective of the time they have lived in the State.

"(b) Compulsory attendance: Provision for the compulsory attendance of all children of migratory workers, as of nonmigratory children.

"(c) Financial program: Provision for State funds for the support of all Stateapproved schools for migratory children.

"(2) Definite Federal Government policy which includes:

"(a) Authorization for continuing appropriation sufficient to pay all salaries of the teachers necessary for children who have migrated into the respective States during the current school year.

"(b) Special provision for the use of Federal Government funds for schoolbuilding purposes in emegency situations, such as the school-building crisis now present in many communities as a result of the national-defense activities." From the testimony of other witnesses who testified on this subject I take the following extracts:

The situation in Oregon was indicated in a letter from Rex Putnam, superintendent of schools in that State, portraying conditions in Yamhill and Malheur Counties as similar to those described immediately above for California. Mr. Putnam noted that "there are no State funds available for aiding these situations and the rural district does not always have the taxable wealth to provide facilities or teachers without sharp increases in taxes

He added:

* *

"Children in the migratory workers' camps, however, are on Federal property and it, therefore, appears that they cannot be included on the school census. The camp property is no longer a school district when it comes under the control of

the Federal Government. The camps are in much the same position as Federal forests, game refuges, and military reserves in this respect.

*

* *

"It would appear the Federal Government should assume the responsibility when migrants are concentrated in camps in order to properly care for the education of the children therein."

Miss Helen White, midwestern migrant supervisor under the Council of Women for Home Missions stated at the Chicago hearings:

Over

This

"No educational system will exclude the migratory child within the region of this hearing, but very little or no encouragement is given to the children of the migratory class to attend the schools in the areas in which they are living. crowding the schools results in discouragement on the part of these children. presents a picture that is unsafe for future democracy; namely, an uneducated constituency who will be the citizens of tomorrow. There are no adequate educational facilities available to these children, and in the consideration of this program, that phase must be given major emphasis."

Miss Lenroot, in her testimony at the Washington hearings, made the following general recommendations:

"Special assistance by Federal and State governments in enabling communities with excessive migration, including those affected by the defense program, to provide adequate community health and welfare services and education opportunities for the children of migrants."

More specifically, Miss Lenroot recommended as deserving of "immediate consideration and action":

"Extension of Federal aid for general elementary and secondary education, as well as for vocational training, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Education, the White House Conference on Children in a Democracy, and other organizations. Training of young people for defense industries and for vocational effectiveness after the emergency is over is impaired to the extent that basic educational preparation is defective in certain sections of the country and among certain population groups."

The need for reeducation in the problem presented by a large number of boys on the road was stated at the Los Angeles hearing, in a letter addressed to Chairman John H. Tolan by Msgr. Thomas J. O'Dwyer. Monsignor O'Dwyer estimated that there were "probably over 100,000 boys 'on the road' in September 1940." On the basis of experience in Los Angeles, Monsignor O'Dwyer made recommendations which he indicated might require modifications to adapt them to local conditions.

"As to the treatment of the general problem, and the disposition of the individual's problem, I would recommend that boys be cared for separately from men; that they be given care and shelter in small units of not more than 100 in any one camp or shelter; that the emphasis of the program be on counseling and guidance, and reeducation for proper living rather than on fire roads and fire breaks. While a boy's return to his legal residence is perhaps best in a majority of cases, provision should be made to rehabilitate those boys who have no homes or such homes that would be unfit. That a strong follow-up program be instituted, and that local facilities and social agencies be used whenever practical. That local advisory committees be formed, not only to interpret the program to the public, but actually to advise the local administrations on policies and matters pertaining to the individual's and community's good, and finally, a uniformity of the legal settlement laws of all the States of the Union."

In regard to the second part of the problem, that of the education of the youth in those sections of out-migration we had testimony in our New York hearings and in the Montgomery hearings bearing especially on this subject. In New York Mr. Glen Leet, administrator of public assistance of the State of Rhode Island, appeared before us and the following extract is taken from the hearing at New York:

"Mr. SPARKMAN. Now, going back to the other end of the age scale, the birth rate in these sections, in which I am particularly interested because that happens to be the condition that prevails in the part of the country from which I came. In studying the problem, do you think it only fair that we recognize the fact that the resources of those sections are heavily taxed in order to provide the cost of bringing those people up to the age that they attain before they migrate; for instance, schooling? We have an excess of population that must move into other sections of the country, and our resources naturally are heavily taxed in order to give them the schooling necessary to equip them to go out and hold those jobs that they seek.

"Mr. LEET. In your State, if you raise mules and ship them out of the State, people in other States pay you for the expense of raising them; but you raise the

children, and have all of the expense of education and other facilities, and when they come to other States, the other States do not pay you anything for raising these children."

When we held our hearings in Montgomery a number of witnesses touched on this subject because the Southeast is the greatest region of out-migration in the country. In fact it was characterized by Dr. Rupert Vance as the "seedbed of the Nation." Dr. Vance stressed particularly the need for vocational and industrial education in the South in order to equip its youth for competition, not only in the industries already located in the South but in the industries in other parts of the country to which they more than likely would migrate in later life. His statement is as follows:

Dr. VANCE. Instead of these people migrating as unskilled "Oakies," as they are designated in Steinbeck's book, I feel that these people should migrate with some skill and training. We know that the graduates from our colleges who migrate to northern cities and northern areas go there and take their positions alongside of anybody else in that area. It is particularly the unskilled people from the farm who form the problem of the destitute migrants which we are considering here today.

I am quoting below the conversation between myself and Mr. P. O. Davis who is director of the Agricultural Extension Service of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute at Auburn, Ala., on this subject:

Mr. SPARKMAN. I doubt if you care to discuss this thing, but some of the later witnesses may discuss it—but I have been particularly interested in and concerned with this problem that we are confronted with here in training young people in order to enable them to compete with those that they must come in competition with when and if they do migrate to other sections of the country. I know that you agree with me that our educational burden, in attempting to train them, is very heavy, very heavy proportionately. I was particularly interested in a statement made to us at another hearing that we have conducted where some gentleman I believe he was from Rhode Island-used this example: He said if you want mules-you 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 to compete with us and you stood all of the expenses in that instance. Now, do you care to talk on that subject?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, someone indicated here something about the Army enlistments this morning and the number of higher officers who were from the South, and you will find in so many of the industries men who have moved from the South into those industries in the other parts of the country. Now, these were men that the South had been struggling to produce and train so far as they could, and it is a fact that when they get ready to produce, to enter some kind of industry, for the good of society or business, on their part, they go somewhere else.

Now, another point, I think that the National Defense Commission's program for the training of our youth largely in a vocational way, should be extended to farm boys and girls and train them for defense purposes as well as for greater domestic service and other things along efficient lines for jobs in which they are engaged or in which they will engage after they are grown.

In the Washington hearings held in December, Prof. Carter Goodrich, professor of economics at Columbia University, New York, testified as follows:

Mr. SPARKMAN. Dr. Goodrich, I have read over your statement with much interest. There is one thing that naturally caught my eye. If I may I will read the portion that I refer to:

"Improvement in education and technical training are needed to increase the ability of prospective migrants to adapt themselves to new opportunities, and there is a strong case for Federal aid to education in the regions of meager income and high birth rate.

"Subsidies designed to keep people in areas which cannot decently support them run counter to sound migration policy; but subsidies designed to fit the

young people of such areas for more useful service elsewhere would, I believe, be a well-placed national investment."

Now, as a matter of fact, in the areas of high birth rate there is a surplus of population that must keep moving out, therefore, the burden is placed upon those particular States and regions to educate those people in order to fit them into the economic plane that they might find in another region. If those States are so heavily burdened to educate those children that are going to become producers for other areas, do you think it is reasonable to require those same areas to match dollar for dollar Federal funds that are given for various subsidies such as you mentioned?

Dr. GOODRICH. Well, I think that the Federal Government should take responsibility for its part of the cost of education in these areas. I am not so sure about other subsidies because I am doubtful about subsidies which, as I said there, are designed to hold people in an area. But I am very strongly in favor of subsidies in the field of education. I think that it is right that the Nation as a whole bear the cost or part of the cost of the education of those people, many of whom are certainly not going to live in the very heavily burdened State which is bringing them up and trying its best to educate them.

I think there again, from the point of view of the State to which they are going to go, it is a disadvantage to the States which receive these people to receive illtrained people. So I think there is a case even aside from our national feeling in the matter-I think there is a strong case from the practical point of view in the States that are likely to receive migrants in having prospective migrants better trained.

I feel very strongly that that is a field in which Federal assistance to the areas that you speak of is entirely justified.

At the New York hearings held in July of 1940 Prof. Frank Lorimer, professor of population studies at the American University in Washington, testified as follows:

Also in previous American theory the provision of educational facilities is a purely local responsibility, or at best a responsibility of the individual States. The poorest families, the poorest areas, and the poorest States, where the ratio of children to the supporting adult population is highest, are absolutely unable to provide health and educational advantages equal to those available in more prosperous communities. As a result, the children growing up in rural areas are subject to the demoralization of disease, malnutrition, and inadequate education. It is not surprising, therefore, that they should usually make low scores on intelligence tests, or that they should often appear shiftless. The people who live in more prosperous areas, through their neglect of these matters, have a heavy responsibility for this situation-a situation which sends a constant stream of illequipped migrants into American cities, undermines our democracy, and weakens our capacity for national defense.

In many of these areas where there are the most meager educational advances the people in those areas are making fully as heavy a proportional contribution to education, but in view of the limited tax resources of those areas they are simply unable, even though they may make greater effort than other States, they are simply unable to maintain the same level of educational opportunity that prevails in the more prosperous areas.

I believe that we are confronted thus with a vicious circle of cultural retardation, leading to excessive fertility, and excessively large families, leading to increasing population pressure in those local areas.

It is leading toward deepening poverty, which leads again toward cultural retardation, excessive fertility, population pressure, and deepening poverty.

In this connection I should like to call attention also to a very short excerpt from the statement of the representative of the Tennessee Valley Authority who appeared before us. He says:

Educational services in the valley are deficient when appraised in terms of the criteria of per capita expenditures for child education, libraries, and research and extension in the land-grant_colleges. In 1933-34 average expenditures per child between the ages of 7 and 17 were $68.02 in the United States as a whole, and only $23.35 in the valley counties. School expenditures per capita of total population ranged from $6.53 to $8.71 in the valley States compared with $15.33 for the United

States. School current expenditures per capita of pupils enrolled ranged from $21.61 to $35.38 in the valley States, as compared with $67.88 for the United States. On the other hand, schools in 1930 took 40.5 cents of the State and local tax dollar in the 7 valley States, while taking 38.5 cents of the State and local tax dollar in the United States as a whole.

I should like to call particular attention to the entire statement of John E. Bryan, State administrator of the National Youth Administration in Alabama, as it is set forth in our hearings, part 2, pages 656 to 673, inclusive. Dr. Bryan has spent his life in educational work and is superintendent of schools in Alabama's largest county, and I feel that his point of view which I referred to earlier in this statement, is one that should have the serious consideration of your committee.

Our committee is a fact-finding committee. The quotations I have given you come from those witnesses who are in a position to know the situation. What they said is supported by the testimony of migrant witnesses themselves and by the observations of the members of the committee and of our own investigators. The committee traveled over 10,000 miles and visited many of the points of concentration. We know of our own knowledge that the problem of educating the children of migrants, including both seasonal and removal migrants, is a very serious one.

We found the problem in New Jersey and the nearby metropolitan area. We found it in the Everglades of Florida, in the cotton fields of Texas, New Mexico, and California; in the beet fields of Michiganwe found it wherever migrants go in large numbers.

As you may know, the labor of children in seasonal migration is apparently necessary to reach even anything like a decent living standard for those families on the road-I refer here especially to those families "who follow the crops" from place to place, from State to State. The result is that an estimated million and a half American children are deprived of the opportunity for even an elementary schooling, or are so retarded that they cannot compete with normally schooled children. As mentioned above, we found a real effort to handle the problem through the mobile school unit-thiswas in Madera County in California.

The "removal" migrant families-those who are forced from their homes, to seek new homes, by drought, mechanization, overpopulation, or economic forces-these families all too often are migrants for so long that the children lose their opportunities for and their interest in schooling.

In the consideration of the question of Federal aid to education, I hope this committee will give full consideration to these boys and girls. who have been uprooted, and who have thus been deprived of even the most meager educational opportunities.

And, in those States of out-migration, especially the Southeastern States described by Dr. Rupert B. Vance as the "seedbed of the Nation," they continue to face the very serious problem of providing educational facilities, with their very limited means, for a higher percentage of their population, a very large proportion of whom will migrate to other sections later and thus deprive their native States of their earning ability and support. This problem, also, is one that your committee should consider seriously.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I asked a committee staff member to bring over and place up here some charts which were presented to us by Dr..