TABLE 5.-Illustrative allotments to States authorized by bill S. 7171

EXPLANATION OF CHART (FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE) "RELATIVE ABILITY AND APPORTIONMENT S. 717, TITLE II, PER PERSON 5-20 YEARS"

This chart shows the illustrative allotments shown in table 2 which the National Board might make if it were to take the ability of the States into consideration. On the right-hand side is shown the apportionment per person 5 to 20 years of age in continental United States. The length of the bars corresponds to the figures in column 3 of table 2, providing the hypothetical allotment ranging from zero in the very wealthy States to $17.23 in Mississippi.

73384-45-pt. 2- -8

The left-hand side of the chart represents the relative ability of each State, as measured by 1940 income payments per person 5 to 20. This ranges from $6,511 in the District of Columbia to $591 in Mississippi. An examination of the two sets of bars shows that the assumed pattern of apportionment presented for illustrative purposes in table 2 takes into account the relative ability of the States to pay for education.

EXPLANATION OF CHART (FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE) "ILLUSTRATIVE

APPORTIONMENT S. 717, TITLE III"

This chart shows in graphic form the data presented in table 3. As with the chart on title II, the States are ranked in order of their financial ability, from highest to lowest.

The left-hand bars represent the amounts which the States would receive from the $50,000,000 apportioned on the basis of total population of all ages. Each State would receive the same per capita amount, approximately $0.37. Although these funds would be apportioned in terms of total population, it is of note that they would represent the equivalent of $1.32 per person 5 to 20 years. The right-hand portion of this chart shows the distribution of the $50,000,000 under title III to be apportioned on the same basis as that of title II. The relative lengths of the bars are therefore the same as those showing the apportionment of funds under title II. As under title II, this half of the title III funds would be distributed in such a way as to take relative ability and educational load of the States into account. The average allotment per person 5 to 20 years of age would be $1.32, but this half of the fund would not go to all States on that basis. The apportionment would vary from zero in the wealthy States down to $2.87 per person 5 to 20 in Mississippi. The total amount of money represented on the left is $50,000,000, the same total amount as represented on the right. The funds on the left are distributed uniformly per capita. The funds on the right are distributed in such a way as to vary inversely with financial ability.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we adjourn until tomorrow morning, if I might have a minute to introduce something in the record.

Senator DONNELL. You may.

Senator MORSE. The committee will recall that Willard B. Spalding, superintendent of schools of Portland, Oreg., was scheduled to testify before the committee, but we were unable to hear him because of the fact that we could not meet at the time he was here, and when he was here we were hearing other witnesses. He has left with me a statement in which he points out what he considers to be both strengths and weaknesses in S. 717 and he asked me if I would be willing to insert the testimony in the record.

I wish to say when he was in town and came in to see me to discuss some of his views on Federal aid, some of which I share and some of which I do not share, I thought it would be a very excellent idea to have him testify before the committee and that permission was granted. In view of the fact that he left his testimony in written form, I would like unanimous consent to have it made a part of the record of the hearing.

Senator DONNELL. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLARD B. SPALDING, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
PORTLAND, OREG.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the need for Federal aid to schools has already been presented to this committee. You may be interested, however, in what is happening to Portland, Oreg., because of the inadequacy of present Federal assistance. Portland is a war-congested city. In it are located 2 of the vast Kaiser Co. yards. In it, also, are over 100 other war plants. Its population has increased tremendously since the war began. The war industries have

brought thousands of persons to the area. The school population has increased by over 10,000 children. Normally new industries with new employees share the burden which they place on community facilities through paying taxes. The plants owned by the Maritime Commission and the many housing units are not taxable. A conservative estimate of tax income for schools, if it could have been levied against these properties, is $1,250,000. The school district received about $40,000 in lieu of taxes each year. It is now operating with a deficit each year. Funds distributed under the Lanham Act make up this deficit, but they are under such stringent control that normal improvement and expansion of the school plant is impossible. The total amount received from this source to date is about $800,000, which is far below what would have come from a tax on property which is not now taxable.

Our schools are overcrowded. Our teachers are overworked and underpaid. Our children are losing education which can never be replaced. These conditions were brought about largely because of the activities of the National Government, which has been having a partially free ride at the expense of the local taxpayer. These conditions will not end with the end of the war. Portland is faced with a large extra burden in educating the children of recent citizens for years to come. We welcome these people, and we would also welcome some money to help in educating their children. The school district is faced with a deficit for 6 more years, if it is to maintain its present level of education. It is using every local source of revenue. Its only other source of revenue at present is from funds distributed under the Lanham Act, which funds are controlled stringently. Portland needs permanent aid from the Federal Government if its schools are to be maintained at their present level.

Senate bill 717 is a good bill in many of its aspects but a very dangerous bill in others. Its major value is that it does provide a permanent system of Federal aid to education. Its good parts may be summarized briefly. First, it provides for a national board. Education in America has always been close to the people. It has been under the control of boards at the local level. The contributions which the members of these boards have made to the improvement of schools have been continuously important. A national board, independent of other Government agencies, with the Commissioner of Education as its executive officer, would place the development of national educational policies within the historic framework of the American school system.

Second, the bill includes all schools, public and nonpublic. I am well aware of the religious issues which are raised by many persons when such a proposal is made, and these issues are not entirely unwarranted. However, the responsibility of this country for the education of all of its children goes far beyond any question of creed. Democracy is in competition with totalitarian government as a way of life. It must gather its strength for this competition from an intelligent and well informed citizenry. Poor schools cannot produce competent persons, and cheap schools are always poor schools. The Federal Government should assist all schools so that the number of poor schools can be reduced and eventually eliminated.

Third, the funds are provided on the same basis to schools for children of minority races as to schools for children of the majority race. The justice of such a provision is recognized so well that it needs no further comment.

Fourth, the bill makes sure that the money which is provided shall be in addition to that already available, when it allocates funds to public schools. The relationship between the quality and the cost of education is well established. Our country must seek to improve the quality of its schools continuously. This continuous improvement can come only through an increase in the cost of schools. Good education is not purchased at bargain counter prices. Local support of schools is inadequate and must be supplemented if boys and girls are to receive increasingly better education. Any reduction in local expenditures would defeat the purposes of the act, that of improvement of education for the Nation.

What is true for public schools is also true for nonpublic ones. These schools now have sources of revenue. They are in operation. The only justification for the use of Federal funds for nonpublic schools is that of improving their quality and so improving the quality of their product, the boys and girls whom they graduate. Senate bill 717 should be amended to make sure that nonpublic schools continue to make the same contribution to their own support that they have been making if they are to receive Federal aid. The bill should not allow the Federal Government to underwrite the present cost of operating these schools.

Fifth, the bill provides funds for purposes which are desirable and close to the needs of children. Better salaries for teachers result in better teachers. More and better services and supplies will make it possible for these teachers to do what is expected of them. Aid to needy students will enable them to continue to increase their competency as citizens and to contribute more to their country. Senate bill 717, in spite of the virtues which have been mentioned is a dangerous bill. With a mild disclaimer of Federal control and with an equally mild endorsement of local resourcefulness it couples administrative practices which insure control on the one hand and deny local resourcefulness on the other. Compare its statement on page 2 lines 2-14, "it being the expressed intent of the Congress that the provisions of this act shall be so construed as to encourage 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 the curricula of the school, etc.", with the language of Senate bill 181, page 1, line 5 to 8; and page 2, lines 1 and 2: "No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over, or prescribe any requirements with respects to any school, or any State educational institution or agency, with respect to which any funds have been or may be made available or expended pursuant to this Act." One statement is a statement of intended construction, the other a definite prohibition of control. Senate bill 717 needs a definite statement of this principle. On page 10, line 1, of Senate bill 717 we find the words "The plans required of any State authority." On the same page, in lines 18 and 19, we find "The State authority may, with the approval of the National Board." On page 8, lines 7 to 11, are the words "The State authority shall make reports to the National Board with respect to the plans and purposes of expenditures of funds received under this act and of the program of education on forms to be provided by the National Board." On page 11, lines 13 to 17, read as follows: "the State authority shall have approved, shall have transmitted to the National Board plans which will provide that the proposed building or buildings shall be located and constructed to meet the educational needs of the community."

If the National Board can require plans for the expenditure of funds, before allocating them, it can and will influence the nature and development of these plans. If it can require reports on the plans and purposes of education in a State, on forms which it provides, it can and will devise forms which will make one pattern of education uniform throughout the country. If the National Board can pass upon the location of a school in the local community and if it can determine the degree to which a building meets the needs of this community, local resourcefulness becomes an empty phrase. By approving physical plants which are fitted for but one type of education it can and will make that type of education uniform throughout our country. If these provisions do not mean Federal control of education in its worst and most dangerous form, then I do not know what control is. This bill contains the language which will make sure that the evil which it opposes in principle will become effective in practice.

Senate bill 717 does not provide a formula for the distribution of funds which is fixed, uniform, and understandable. It leaves the distribution of funds to the National Board. Such a provision is unsound if local resourcefulness is to flourish. The local school system cannot plan wisely unless it knows with reasonable certainty what funds are available to it. It must look ahead for long periods of time as it seeks to develop ways of improving. The children who enter the first grade in September 1945 graduate from high school in June of 1957. That span of years, at least, must be anticipated in educational planning. The local district cannot operate efficiently if its view is clouded by financial uncertainty. It cannot be dependent upon the largesse of a Federal board which can give when it wills and withhold when it will, as long as it gives 30 days' notice of its intent. The absence of a fixed formula means that the National Board can purchase any program of education which it wishes to have. It can grant funds only to those States or communities which fit into its preconceived pattern of thought. This bill opens the way for nationalization of our schools.

In summary, then, Senate bill 717 is sound in its creation of a National Board of Education, in its inclusion of aid to all schools, both public and nonpublic, in its provision of funds to all schools without regard to race, in its insistence that public schools maintain their present level of local and State support, and in the purposes for which the money is to be spent. Senate bill 717 is unsound

in its failure to insist upon the maintaining of present levels of local expenditure by nonpublic schools, in its mild statement about Federal control, in its inclusion of practices which insure that control will be complete, and in its failure to provide an objective formula for the distribution of funds.

I urge this committee to retain those features which have been mentioned as good and to amend the bill by eliminating or improving those features which are bad. I suggest that the formula set up in Senate bill 181 be used for the distribution of funds under any bill for Federal aid to schools.

Federal aid to schools is essential if education in this Nation is to improve. I urge this committee to present to the Congress a proposal which will enable the boys and girls of this country to receive the education which they deserve.

Senator DONNELL. Dr. Reeves, would you be kind enough to file with the committee for its use and for the record a brief biographical sketch of yourself showing your experience, educationally, sir? Dr. REEVES. Yes.

Senator SMITH. I would like to express my appreciation of the splendid testimony Dr. Reeves has given. I hope he realizes in our questioning that we have just been trying to clarify these points.

Senator DONNELL. I am sure we join with Senator Smith in his

statement.

I will say to those in attendance that our committee is confronted with a dilemma, on the one hand the horn of meetings of the committees and the necessity for being on the floor of the Senate, and while we should like, I am sure, to proceed as expeditiously as possible, it will be advisable for us to recess until tomorrow morning, and, therefore, the committee will be in recess to reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(The sketch referred to is as follows:)

[From Who's Who in America, vol. 23, 1944-45]

REEVES, Floyd Wesley, educator; b. Castalia, S. D., Nov. 16, 1890; s. Charles Edward and Ella T. (Ogilvee) R.; B. S., Huron (S. D.) Coll., 1915, studied U. of Wis., summer 1916; M. A., U. of Chicago, 1921, Ph. D., 1925; m. Hazel Beatrice Flint, Sept. 11, 1915; children--Floyd Orville, Fritz Earl, Alta Mae. Teacher rural schs, until 1912; prin. Jefferson Sch., Huron, 1915-17; supt. schs. Gregory, 1917-20, Winner, 1920–22; fellow U. of Chicago, 1922-23; with Transylvania College, 1923-25, prof edu. dir. Sch. of Edu., and administrative dean; prof. edu. U. of Ky., 1925-29, also dir. Bur. of Sch. Service 1927-29, and head of Dept.

of Ednl. Admitrn.; became prof. edu. U. of Chicago, 1929, now prof. of adminstrn.; dir. personnel and dir. social and economic divs., Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933-36; director Am. Youth Commn., 1939-41; dir. labor supply, Office Production Management, 1940-41. Served as ednl. advisor Ky. Efficiency Commn.; dir. research higher edu. for Bd. of Edn., Disciples of Christ; dir. survey of ednl. instns., M. E. Church, Mem. staff, Regents Inquiry into Character and Cost of Pub. Edn. in State of N. Y., 1936-37; mem. staff, President's Com. on Administrative Management, 1936; chmn. Advisory Com. on Edn., 1936-39; mem. Advisory Com. Works Progress Administration, ednl. program, 1938-40; mem. report com. White House Conf. on Children in a Democracy, 1939-40; mem. advisory com. on administrators of the President's Com. on Civil Service Improvement, 1939-40. Cons. Nat. Resources Planning Board, 1941-43; chmn. Conf. on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Mil. Personnel, 1942-43. Fellow A. A. A. S.; mem. Am. Assn. Sch. Administrs., Am. Edn. Res. Assn., Am. Polit. Science Assn., Am. Soc. for Pub. Adminstrn. Clubs: Cosmos, Quadrangle. Author: The Political Unit of Public School Finance in Illinois, 1924; College Organization and Administration (with John D. Russell), 1929; The Liberal Arts College (with same), 1932; Personnel Administrn. in the Federal Service (with Paul David), 1937; Adult Education (with T. Fansler and C. O. Houle), 1938; Education for Today and Tomorrow, 1942; editor of University of Chicago Survey, 12 vols., and co-author of 10 volumes, 1933. Home: 1332 E. 56th St., Address: University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.