Imágenes de páginas

sored in the Senate by Lister Hill, of Alabama, and Elbert Thomas, of Utah, and in the House by Georgia's Robert Ramspeck.

The Federal aid bill is designed primarily to raise teacher salaries, but in obtaining such funds, Georgia would be in a better position to provide adequate school facilities to replace the pitiful fire-traps described by the State development board to the general assembly. There is not much point in providing better teaching facilities if there is no place to house pupils safely and comfortably, and if the lives of pupils are to be jeopardized by transportation in defective busses.

Georgia will spend approximately half of her income in 1945 on education, teachers will receive better pay than before, thanks to Governor Arnall and to an enlightened and cooperative general assembly, but still only 44 percent of the schools for whites and 15 percent of the schools for Negroes meet the accepted standards for school buildings and equipment. It is not a very encouraging picture.

We take hope from the growing recognition of our needs. Dr. John K. Norton, of Teachers College, Columbia University, after a 2-year survey of public school expenditures, told the Senate Committee on Education and Labor Monday that there is a shocking degree of inequality of educational opportunity in the United States, with 60 times as much financial support behind the education of children in some areas as in others. This should prove a telling argument for the Federal aid bill.

But the most cheering sign of all is the local recognition of our problems. The development board has performed a signal service in its investigation of 97 percent of Georgia's schools to determine our actual needs. To win the battle, we must know the enemy thoroughly. Once we face the facts of our situation realistically, we shall be nearer a remedy. At this point, our best hope for early relief seems to lie in the direction of Federal aid. Georgia and States like her cannot progress satisfactorily until they have attained educational parity with the Nation.

Senator FULBRIGHT. We will now adjourn until 2:30 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m. a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)


Senator ELLENDER. The hearing will be in order. General Fries, step forward, please.



General Fries. My name is Amos A. Fries, major general, United States Army, retired, director of the Southern-Western region, Friends of the Public Schools of America, and editor of the bulletin, Friends of the Public Schools.

I am appearing for and in the name of the Friends of the Public Schools of America in opposition to S. 181.

Senator ELLENDER. What is that organization composed of?

General Fries. It is an organization with headquarters in Chicago, and it is organized as an organization in Chicago, Ill., operated on a national program for improving, protecting, and preserving the taxsupported free public schools.

Senator ELLENDER. What is your membership?

General FRIES. We haven't a great membership. Perhaps 1,000, maybe more, and maybe less.

Senator Johnson. "How do you get your membership?

General Fries. We do not make any special effort to get them. We are not organized as a pressure group in any way whatsoever. We are organized to try to dispense facts and arguments in support of our position.

Senator ELLENDER. How do you maintain yourself!

General FRIES. By donations, subscriptions to the magazine, and through memberships.

Senator ELLENDER. Have you a prepared statement?

General FRIES. Yes, but I have two or three other things to say outside of that.

Senator ELLENDER. You may proceed.

General FRIES. I just want to say, first, that the Friends of the Public Schools stand for a school system of the people, by the people, for the children of the people--patriotic, inspiring, with thorough training in the fundamentals, and taught by men and women of high character, religious ideals, and public spirit.

We are opposed to centralization of power over the school system whether governmental, group, or class. We are opposed to supporting private schools by public tax money, whether religious or otherwise.

In some of the testimony given this morning mention was made of the plight of the teacher-training colleges. That is the plight of all the colleges.

In the Times-Herald of yesterday, February 1, there is an article entitled, “Committee Report to House Urges Subsidies for Colleges.” Part of the article states:

Calling for Federal subsidization of war-stricken colleges, until soldiers and sa ilors can return to take advantage of their educational bill of rights, the House Committee on Education yesterday made 11 recommendations in an 85-page report.

So I presume the teachers' colleges will have a chance to be taken care of there as well as the others.

This bill, like the two immediately preceding bills, is entitled, “Educational Finance Act of 1945.". The proponents have avoided in these last two bills any mention of the words "Federal aid to education," either in the titles or anywhere in the bills themselyes.



The change in the title of these bills from "Federal Aid to Education” to “Educational Finance Act," taken together with the added words, “other school employees,” indicates a radical change in the ideas of those sponsoring the bill. The addition of the words other school employees" after "teachers" indicates that the bill is headed toward the entire financing of the public schools by the Federal Government. Indeed, the bill indicates a plan to make of the public schools of the United States one unified whole to include buildings, grounds and all equipment, teachers, and all other employees. This bill sets up a complete machine of control and operation of the public school system of the United States. If this be not the idea back of those words, what is it?

We have never heard in the evidence given in support of any of these bills that the engineers, carpenters, repairmen, janitors, and scrubwomen in the various school districts were underpaid. In fact, they have always been considered the same as other employees serving the public and subject to the same wages.


Furthermore, this bill, in line with the last four previous ones, provides that every State will get money whether it be rich or poor, whether it has any financial need or not. In this respect it is totally at variance with the President's pronouncement both in a letter to the Conference on Rural Education held in the White House on the 4th, 5th and 6th of October 1944, and as contained in the Budget message to Congress. In the President's Budget message, he said:

If a suitable standard of education is to be maintained in all parts of the country, the Federal Government must render aid where it is needed—but only where it is needed.

That statement differs just 100 percent from this bill. S. 181 does not provide in any way whatsoever that any State, municipality, county, or even school district shall prove that it actually needs the money—that is, that it cannot afford to educate its children.

WHO DECIDES AMOUNT OF EDUCATION, UNITED STATES OR STATE? Another question comes in right here, and that is who shall judge the amount of education that each child in the various States shall have. Shall it be the Federal Government, or shall it be the State, or the local school authorities? Inasmuch as this bill provides ostensibly, and ostensibly only, for equalization of educational opportunities, the Federal Government must have the right to state the amount of education each child shall receive. To that extent, which is a great deal, the Government of the United States steps in and controls the schools.


Now I do not need to tell this committee that any bill passed by Congress may be amended, altered, rewritten or changed in any way a succeeding Congress may see fit. Therefore, these bills are subject to amendments, extending the authority of the United States until the Government eventually takes over the complete financing of the schools, and these bills indicate that may be the idea of those writing them. If and when that time comes, the Government certainly will take over the regulation of the schools more or less completely. Those are just the general features.

There are a number of provisos in this bill, as in other bills, that give the Federal Government considerable control over the schools, but I will refer to them later.


Now let us consider the appropriation itself. According to the report accompanying S. 637 of last Congress, and this bill is the same in that respect, five States and the District of Columbia are said to have no financial need. That is, those six are financially able to bring their schools up to any standard they see fit. I would just add that these five States are New York, which gets $17,036,200"; California, $9,119,400; Connecticut, $2,185,400; Delaware, $341,800; Nevada, $166,000; and the District of Columbia, $759,600.

I might add right here, I am a member of the Board of Trade of the District of Columbia, a member of the Public School Committee, and chairman of the Curriculum Committee. I voted for every proposal to increase the teachers' salaries, and now, with an increase of 10 to 15 percent for all teachers, their average pay is somewhere around $2,700, and it is up for revision to increase the basic pay by act of Congress. I do not know how that will come out, of course.

To repeat, these States are specifically set forth in the report as having no financial need and yet they are expected to take this money and in order to get it, must cause their legislatures to pass an act accepting all the provisions of the bill, S. 181. If the intention is not to eventually have some Federal control of these schools, why give the rich States great sums of money?



There is still a further phase to this condition. Everyone knows that New York State today pays her teachers higher salaries on an average than any other State in the Union, California comes second and the District of Columbia third.

To repeat again, these five States and the District of Columbia have no need of the money which they will be forced to take under this bill.

It is believed those advocating this bill will admit that a great majority of the remainder of the States can finance their schools to any extent they see fit. Why then force the Federal Government to borrow $250,000,000 plus and pay 114 to 272 percent interest just to give money to States that don't need it? We must remember that the people of these States will have to, in one way or another, repay this money to the Federal Government with interest. There must be some reason back of this. All indications are that it is for the purpose of getting all the public schools of the United States under one authority.

Going further into this matter, we find that 11 of the richest States, namely, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas get together $123,806,574, 41 percent of the $300,000,000 to be appropriated.


In other words, these 11 States get a little over 41 percent of the entire appropriation. Furthermore, since this bill provides that twothirds of the whole appropriation is to be pro rata to the number of school children and thus approximately pro rata to the number of inhabitants, how can it help in any way to equalize educational opportunities?

Thus this bill tends neither to equalize educational opportunities nor does it meet the President's requirement of school need. In fact, the whole plan is one of centralization of authority, through the Commissioner of Education in Washington, D. C. He is to apportion money partly in the first place by figures arrived at in his office and later by the income as reported by the Department of Commerce. There is nothing in the bill that equalizes education anywhere in the States.


Pursuing this inequality of distribution of money still further, we find that New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, three of the richest States in the Union, get $55,696,796 or more than 1812 percent of the whole bill. Thus the bill gives the most money to those who have the most, or as the Bible says, “To them that hath it shall be given."

Along,this same line the proponents of this bill are claiming that there won't be any Federal control—that the Government has for nearly 100 years made large grants of land and even money to landgrant colleges, to colleges for the ROTC, the George Deen and SmithHughes Acts, and others. These acts, however, were appropriations of money or property very closely meeting the President's statement of appropriating money where it is needed and only where it is needed.”


There has been a good deal said about the land-grant colleges and that there was no Federal control of them. The first land-grant college act was passed in 1862, and it was particularly the wish of President Lincoln that it be passed. That was because military training in schools other than West Point was pretty largely confined to Virginia, and to some extent to South Carolina, and that was the reason why the leadership in the South, in the Confederate Army, certainly in the ranks of captain and major, was much better than in the northern armies during the first 2 years of war. President Lincoln felt that so keenly that that was one of the reasons for passing those acts.

In addition, the States in the West were going into new regions of agriculture where there were not any mechanical organizations in existence, and so they added they should have courses in agriculture and in mechanics.

Now, that bill was amended in 1866, in 1890, in 1907, and by the Bankhead-Jones Act of June 29, 1935.

As regards the control, I would just like to read three or four short paragraphs:

Expenditures for permanent improvements to buildings, grounds, and farms, such as clearing, draining, and fencing lands, are not allowable from these funds.

The funds cannot be expended for heating or lighting buildings, musical instruments, military equipment, furniture, cases, shelving, desks, blackboards, tables, and lockers.

The salary of the treasurer of the college is not a legitimate charge against the funds and cannot properly be paid from them.

The salaries of purely administrative officers, such as presidents, treasurers, secretaries, bookkeepers, janitors, watchmen, etc., cannot be charged to these funds, nor the salaries of other administrative officers, like superintendents, foremen, and matrons, and the wages of unskilled laborers and assistants in shops, laboratories, and fields.

The fu cannot be used for salaries of instructors in philosophy, psychology, ethics, logic, history, civil government, military science and tactics, and in ancient and modern languages.

Then it says finally:

Expenditures from the funds provided by the act of March 4, 1907, are not authorized for general courses in pedagogy, psychology, history of education, and methods of teaching.

« AnteriorContinuar »