« AnteriorContinuar »
In brief, Mississippi is making a strong effort, much above the average, to provide financial support for the public schools, but is still below standards in salaries, buildings, and equipment. The only solution to the problem of adequate financial support for schools in Mississippi, as in many other of the poorer States, is Federal aid. This is true also in districts even in many of the wealthier States.
Citizens of Mississippi, just as citizens of other States, are citizens of the Nation, and therefore what affects these citizens affects the Nation as a whole. The problems of health, of economics, of living standards, of family relationships, are affected by the educational program of the States. Education is the biggest business of the Nation, just as it is the biggest business in Mississippi or in any other particular State.
School people of_Mississippi earnestly request that Federal legislation be enacted providing Federal aid for the public schools without Federal control. Children are not expendable.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN,
Meridian, Miss., January 26, 1945. Dr. H. M. Ivy,
Legislative Chairman of NEA, Meridian, Miss. MY DEAR DR. Ivy: The Mississippi division of the American Association of University Women has passed resolutions favoring House bill 2849 and Senate bill 637. We now urge the passage of the bills providing Federal aid without Federal control. Sincerely yours,
MAUDE SMITH, President, Mississippi Division.
MISSISSIPPI FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, INC.,
Jackson, Miss., January 25, 1945. To Whom It May Concern:
The Mississippi Federation of Women's Clubs at their State convention in Jackson, Miss., on November 2, 1944, endorsed the principle of Federal aid without Federal control as expressed in S. 637 and H. R. 2849. We urge the passage of this bill at the earliest possible moment. Respectfully,
Mrs. J. T. CALHOUN,
Chairman, Committee on Education. Senator ELLENDER. Next, please.
Mr. PARRATT. J. Easton Parratt, member of the board of trustees for the Utah Education Association.
On behalf of the board of trustees of the Utah Education Association, I would like to submit a resolution approved by that board on January 13, 1945. (The resolution presented by J. Easton Parratt is as follows:)
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, January 13, 1945.
RESOLUTION CONCERNING FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION
Whereas there has been introduced into our National Congress legislation proposing additional Federal aid to public education throughout the several States and Territories, and
Whereas, because of low salaries, there has been an exodus of teachers from the classrooms until at the present time 25 percent of the teachers of Utah are not properly certificated, and
Whereas the State legislature now in session is hard pressed to determine where to levy additional taxes in order to maintain State aid given to the districts at present inasmuch as there is not money available in the general fund, and
Whereas we firmly believe that our national security depends, as never before, on an adequately educated citizenry and scientifically trained individuals, and
Whereas it seems just that some of the financial responsibility of providing better education for American children should be that of the United States Goyernment: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Utah Education Association Board of Trustees, in behalf of the Utah Education Association membership, That our Congressmen and other responsible people be urged to support measures S. 181 and H. R. 1296.
Mr. PARRATT. Then, if I may have permission, I would like to read one paragraph to supplement the testimony given by Dr. Hubbard this morning
Senator ELLENDER. Proceed.
Mr. PARRATT. This study was made by a committee of the faculty members of the University of Utah Education Division and taken from their study [reading]:
It is estimated by this committee that there will be only 90 graduates this year. This study also showed that of the small number graduating in 1942 only 58 percent were teaching 4 months later in 1942 in October. Seventeen percent were in other employment, 14 percent were married, and the other 11 percent were in the Army or doing graduate work. If we go back to the graduating class of 1941 we find only 36 percent of those preparing to teach still teaching 18 months after graduation.
Senator ELLENDER. Thank you. Mr. Ogg, will you give us your full name and whom you represent, please.
STATEMENT OF W. R. OGG, DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON OFFICE,
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. OGG. My name is W. R. Ogg. I am director of the Washington office of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I am appearing here in place of President O'Neal who is unable to be here as he is out of the city. But I am authorized to present this statement for our organization. I think it would save time if I might just read it.
Senator ELLENDER, Proceed, sir. You don't mind being interrupted ?
Mr. Ogg. No. For many years, the American Farm Bureau Federation has advocated the establishment of a system of Federal grants-inaid to the States for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity in the United States.
Equality of opportunity has long been one of the cardinal principles of American way of life. Nothing can contribute more to such equality of opportunity than an equal opportunity to secure education and training for a vocation of one's own free and independent choice.
*Due to the enormous concentration of population and of taxable resources in urban and industrial areas, it is impossible, under present conditions, for the respective States and communities to provide anything like equality of educational opportunity., Your committee has already received voluminous evidence and testimony based upon a great many extensive studies showing the glaring inequalities of educational opportunity which exist due to financial inability of States and communities unaided to provide adequate facilities. These studies show that frequently the States and communities that have relatively the poorest educational facilities are making the greatest sacrifices in terms of taxation in relation to incomes, in order to maintain even these inadequate facilities.
In general, the rural areas are the ones that suffer the most because of the lack of educational facilities and which, at the same time, are carrying a heavy load of taxes in proportion to their taxable incomes, in order to support their schools.
This is a matter of concern to urban areas as well as rural areas, because about 4 out of every 10 youth on the farms go to the cities. Thus the rural areas have borne a heavy burden in rearing, supporting, and educating these millions who later migrate to the cities. It is estimated that this alone cost rural America something like one and a half billion dollars annually in the prewar period.
Federal grants-in-aid are therefore justifiable in the public interest, if confined to the equalization of educational opportunity.
There is ample precedent for such Federal assistance in many other acts of Congress, notably the Morrell Act signed by President Lincoln in 1862 establishing the United States Department of Agriculture and the land-grant college system in States with Federal grants-in-aid to the States; later the Hatch Act providing for the establishment of State experiment stations with Federal grants-in-aid; still later, in 1914, the Smith-Lever Act providing for the establishment of the Agricultural Extension Service in the States with Federal grants-in-aid; and various supplementary Federal appropriations in more recent years; and finally, the Smith-Hughes Act establishing a system of vocational education through grants-in-aid to the States for expenditure through the public-school system. All of these acts and systems of education have been handled without Federal control of education and have brought wonderful results.
We believe that Federal assistance to the States for the improvement of public elementary and secondary schools can and should be provided in such a manner as to avoid any Federal control or domination of education.
We therefore favor the enactment by Congress of such legislation in accordance with the following principles :
1. Such legislation should contain adequate safeguards to prevent Federal control or domination of education and to preserve State and local control over public education.
Section 1 of the proposed bill contains very specific language which we believe provides such a mandate.
2. Federal assistance should be limited to financial grants-in-aid, based upon justifiable need to equalize educational opportunity.
This proposed bill contains two funds: (a) An annual appropriation of $200,000,000 per year until 1 year after the end of the war emergency, to be apportioned to the States on the basis of the average school attendance in the respective States and to be used for certain specified purposes, including increases in subnormal teachers' salaries, increase in teachers' salaries to meet increased living costs, and for other costs of operating schools; and (b) a permanent annual appropriation of $100,000,000 to be apportioned to the States to equalize educational opportunity and to be used to help pay the cost of public elementary and secondary education. These funds would be apportioned on the basis of a formula which is defined in section 3.
We question the advisability and necessity to set up this special fund of $200,000,000 for special purposes. We believe it would be preferable, in the public interest, to provide only one fund and to limit its use to the equalization of educational opportunity and to justifiable need. This would serve to take care of immediate needs due to wartime dislocations as well as long-time needs due to financial inequalities among the States. We are strongly opposed to the proposal to apportion this $200,000,000 on the basis of average school attendance. This would mean that the most populous areas with the greatest financial resources to finance education would receive the bulk of this $200,000,000, while the areas with the least financial resources would receive the least funds. It is the very antithesis of equalization. It would aggravate still further the inequalities of educational opportunity as between States. It would provide the largest grants to States which already have abundant financial resources to provide adequate educational facilities.
The amount of $200,000,000 also appears to be out of proportion to the $100,000,000 provided for the permanent program. In the postwar period, when the national income may be reduced, there will be more need for Federal aid to States to equalize educational opportunity than there is need to meet wartime needs when incomes are at record high levels. Yet, this proposed distribution of funds would provide $300,000,000 annually during the war emergency and then drop to $100,000,000 at the end of the first postwar year.
We, therefore, urge that this special emergency fund be eliminated and a reasonable amount be added to the regular permanent fund, and that all be apportioned on the basis of financial need in relation to the number of children of school age.
3. The apportionment of funds to the States should be based upon the financial needs of the States in relation to the number of children to be educated, and grants should be limited to the equalization of educational opportunities.
The proposed formula in the bill does not conform to this principle. Instead, it appears to be constructed in such a manner as to give every State a very substantial amount of the Federal funds, regardless of the financial need of the States, and to give a disproportionate share of funds to States which need little, if any, Federal funds because of their large taxable resources which they have available to maintain adequate educational facilities unaider by the Federal Government.
Senator ELLENDER. You are referring to the $200,000,000 fund?
Mr. Ogg. As I understand it the bill provides for two indexes, (1) an index of financial need, which is taken to be the estimated total income payments, and the other index, I believe, is based upon the number of children of school age.
Now, the formula requires that one be related in ratio to the other, but in the case of the index of financial need you are only permitted to use 65 percent of your income payments and relate that to the number of children of school age. As I interpret that it would mean that the wealthier States would thereby receive a major percentage of the funds.
Senator ELLENDER. Not if it is based on the income. The greater the income the less they would need.
Mr. Ogg. Yes; but we only take a 65-percent weighting of that. I haven't seen the figures and I might be mistaken. "If so, I would be glad to be corrected on it.
Senator ELLENDER. Have you a better formula to propose to the committee than has been worked out?
Mr. Ogg. I will come to our suggestion in a moment.
Mr. Ogg. For example, the formula only allows the States 65 percent credit for their relative financial needs as indicated by the total income payments, but gives 100 percent credit for the total school population. Clearly, this is not directed toward true equalization of education inequalities, as this would tend to reduce the apportionments to States which have the greatest needs for the funds, and increase the apportionments to the States which already have abundant financial resources with which to support adequate educational facilities.
We therefore respectfully insist that this formula be modified so as to provide for apportionment to the States strictly on the basis of financial need in relation to the number of children to be educated, and that grants be limited to the equalization of educational opportunities.
In other words, if we are going to have a formula our suggestion is that it be based on the index of financial need as determined by the amount of income payments in the State and let the chips fall where they will without this adjustment.
Senator ELLENDER. I was under the impression that the formula did that very thing.
Mr. OGG. Well, but you only give a 65 percent weighting, so to speak, to the financial ability as represented by the income payments. It would seem to be if the principle is sound that the funds are to be apportioned for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity on the basis of need, need both from the standpoint of the number of children to be educated and need from the standpoint of the inability of the State to finance adequate facilities, we should take those two factors as they are, first the number of children to be educated and second the lack of income in relation to other States, without adjusting the formula, so as to assure that every State will get a certain amount of money, or any proportion of the money, and let the chips fall where they will.
Senator ELLENDER. Well, of course, I would like to work out a formula that way, but, you know, we need quite a few votes in the Senate so as to pass the bill.
Mr. OGG. That is a practical problem that you gentlemen, of course, have before you.
Senator ELLENDER. Yes. I am somewhat of a realist.
Mr. Ogg. But we believe that that principle is sound as a matter of fundamental policy in establishing this kind of legislation. On that point, Senator, I think this, that this same issue comes up all the time on all these Federal-aid measures, the highway building and all the other Federal grants-in-aid, but it seems to me that these heavily populated industrial States ought not to take a narrow, sectional view of this thing, because, as I indicated, it is a very great benefit to them if the rural areas and the rural States do a good job of educating these boys and girls. Nearly half of these boys go to the cities later after they have received their education. They will make a lot better citizens and make a better contribution to the urban community. I think they should take a broader view than to say, "Are we going to get some of this money?” when they don't really need it. Our contention is that they do not really need much, if any, of this money. The record