cation and employment of students receiving this aid may not exceed 8 hours during any one day or 48 hours during any one week. Allocation among States.-This appropriation would be allocated among the States on the basis of the total number of persons in each of such States between the ages of 14 and 20, inclusive, as estimated by the Bureau of the Census.. Eligible students.-Persons 14 to 20, inclusive, would be eligible for assistance if in regular attendance at 1. An educational institution, whether public or nonpublic; or 2. A training center which meets the requirements of the Federal Apprenticeship Act. In the case of students who are 14 and 15 years of age, payments would be made to the parents. State plan.-The State educational authority is required to promulgate and publish a plan for the distribution of these funds. This plan would set forth the method of 1. Determining need; and 2. Administration of the program adopted for the use of such funds. The bill requires that disbursements made under such plan shall be uniformly applicable, under similar conditions, without discrimination on account of race or creed. Distribution of funds.—The funds paid to a State, or to a trustee (appointed in any State which is prohibited from distributing funds to nonpublic schools), shall be available for disbursement by the State educational authority or by such trustee. UNIVERSITY TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 497, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Missoula, Mont., April 9, 1945. Senator JAMES MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We are very much interested in Federal aid bill S. 717 and urge you to do all in your power to bring about its passage. Our position is that S. 717 possesses many points of advantage over S. 181 which is sponsored by the NEA. However, we believe that the general principle of Federal aid is the central issue and would not be adverse to any reasonable compromise between the two bills. In particular, the method of allocation of funds in S. 181 seems to us to be preferable to that of S. 717 in which it is left to the discretion of an appointed board to some extent. Sincerely yours, Senator JAMES MURRAY, Washington, D. C.: ROY DUBISCH, Secretary. Los Angeles, Calif., August 22, 1945. This committee urges your support of Mead-Aiken bill, S. 717. For protecttion of interest of low paid teachers and for the benefit of the American child without discrimination we urge your support of S. 717, not S. 181. MOTION PICTURE LABOR COMMITTEE, CASCADE COUNTY TRADES AND LABOR ASSEMBLY, The Honorable JAMES E. MURRAY, The United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The Cascade County Trades and Labor Assembly urges that you support Senate bill 717, which bill would authorize the appropriation of funds to assist the States in more adequately financing education and in removing substandard conditions in education; to aid in establishing and maintaining education services; to eradicate illiteracy; to preserve and promote the national security in peace and in war; to raise the educational level of the Nation; and to promote the general welfare. We feel that Senate bill 717 is a practical measure in accord with sound educational and economic principles. Organized labor has always believed that the greatest benefits of democracy can only come when the public is fully educated. Very truly yours, JOHN EVANKO, Jr., Secretary. Senator JAMES MURRAY, BRIDGEPORT, CONN., July 30, 1945. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: HAROLD V. FINMARK, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, Bonner, Mont., April 6, 1945. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY (Montana), United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Local 10–353, IWA-CIO, wishes to call your attention to Senate bill 717, sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers, now before the Senate Labor and Education Committee. We note you are on that committee. Local 10-353, IWA-CIO, feels that Senate bill 717, is a worthy and vital bill to the advancement of our educational system in these United States. We ask you to use your best efforts to support this bill. The labor movement in Montana is united in favor of Senate bill 717. Senate bill 181, sponsored by the National Educational Association, has some features not acceptable to Local 10-353, IWA-CIO, and we are not recommending its passage. Respectfully yours, CHAS. W. GARDNER, Recording Secretary, Local 10–353, IWA-CIO. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., July 31, 1945. SENATOR JAMES MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. We respectfully urge you support S. 717 because of its adequate provisions to improve our educational system as it affects not only the students but the teachers as well. California State Federation of Labor makes this request in behalf of all the AFL unions in the State of California numbering 1,000,000 members. Hon. SENATOR JAMES MURRAY: C. J. HAGGERTY, Secretary. COLUMBUS, OHIO, July 30, 1945. The officers and members of the Ohio State Federation of Labor respectfully solicit your favorable consideration and support of the Mead-Aiken bill, S. 717, which grants Federal aid to education. It is our understanding that this measure requires States to use Federal money to supplement and not supplant State funds. PHIL HANNAH, Secretary-Treasurer, Ohio State Federation of Labor. BUTTE, MONT., April 7, 1945. Senator JAMES MURRAY, United States Senate, Washington D. C.: The Butte Teachers Union request your support for bill, S. 717, sponsored by the Sincerely yours, CECILIA HARRINGTON, Recording Secretary. ! H Hon. JAMES MURRAY, United States Senate: CHICAGO, ILL., July 30, 1945. The Illinois State Federation of Labor is heartily in accord with the MeadAiken bill, S. 717, and earnestly hopes it will receive favorable consideration. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Washington, D. C.: ILLINOIS STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, V. A. OLANDER, Secretary-Treasurer. ANACONDA, MONT., April 8, 1945. S. 717 relative to Federal aid for education appears to be a much better bill than S. 181 and we earnestly and respectfully solicit your utmost support and consideration for S. 717. Our organization endorses S. 717 very highly. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, V. W. HOWLAND, Grand Knight. Senator JAMES MURRAY: HARRISBURG, PA., July 31, 1945. The membership of Pennsylvania Federation of Labor is asking your support of S. 717 introduced by Senators Mead and Aiken, JAMES L. MCDEVITT, President, Pennsylvania Federation of Labor. PORTLAND, OREG., July 28, 1945. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Request support Senate 717 as endorsed by American Federation of Labor. It is progressive legislation that requires State to use Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, State funds. It provides aid for every American child and provides funds for decent salaries for teachers. Request opposition to Senate 181 supported by opponents which fails to protect these interests. Understand vicious incorrect information circulated there. J. T. MARR, Executive Secretary, Oregon State Federation of Labor. Hon. JAMES MURRAY, KANSAS CITY, Mo., July 30, 1945. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Organized labor in Missouri urgently requests that you use your good offices to support the Aiken bill, S. 717. FRANK J. MURPHY, Secretary, Missouri State Federation of Labor. Hon. JAMES MURRAY, ALBANY, N. Y., July 31, 1945. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: The New York State Federation of Labor desires to make known its endorsement of the Mead-Aiken bill, S. 717, and respectfully urges you to do everything possible in support of this measure. Substitute bill, No. 181, is opposed by reason of its failure to include provisions which are beneficial to children and extremely low-paid teachers. THOMAS M. MURRAY, 73384-45-pt. 2—35 Secretary-Treasurer. MISSOULA, MONT., April 14, 1945. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Education, Senate Building, Washington, D. C.: Missoula Central Trades and Labor Council urges your committee to report out favorably S. 717. S. H. RIVIN, Secretary. ANACONDA, MONT., April 6, 1945. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Desire favorable consideration Senate bill 717. Absolutely opposed to Senate bill 181. Our view in American Catholic Review of February 17 and March 24. SAINT PAUL'S HOLY NAME SOCIETY COMMITTEE, JOSEPH SLADICH, EUGENE BOYCE, EDWARD H. HUESTIS, Jr. GREAT FALLS TEACHERS UNION, Mr. JAMES E. MURRAY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MURRAY: In consideration of the fact that educational opportunities in the poorer districts of Montana are well below par, we ask your support of Senate bill 717. It is our understanding that this measure would help to equalize school facilities for all children throughout the country. May we be informed of your stand on this bill? Very truly yours, R. H. SPAULDING, Secretary, Local No. 754, American Federation of Teachers. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: SEATTLE, WASH., July 27, 1945. The Mead-Aiken bill, S. 717, which grants Federal aid to education embodies the principles adopted by the AFL convention. Includes assurance that classroom teachers receive benefit. Provides services for every child without discrimination because of race, creed, or color. Provides help to keep poorer students in school. Requires States to use Federal money to supplement not to supplant State funds. Protects State control over education. The Washington State Federation of Labor urges that you support this bill. JAMES A. TAYLOR, President, Washington State Federation of Labor. CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL OF ANACONDA, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a regular meeting of the Anaconda Central Labor Council, held on April 9, 1945, I was instructed to urge you to support, with all the forces at your command, Senate bill No. 717 and also H. R. 2071. This council appreciates your fine support on past occasions. Respectfully yours, W. D. WAGNER, Secretary. [Staff memorandum] FORMULAS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL AID Throughout the hearings on the two Federal aid to education bills, a number of the committee members and witnesses discussed the advisability or inadvisability of writing into legislation a specific mathematical formula for the allocation of Federal educational funds among the States. The NEA experts testified in favor of having a specific mathematical formula in the legislation, as in S. 181. Dr. Floyd Reeves, of the University of Chicago; Dr. George Zook, of the American Council on Education; and the American Federation of Teachers representatives testified that they believed that a specific formula in a bill did not permit the flexibility which the good administration of Federal aid to education demanded. On this subject the NRPB in its last development report said: "It would appear unwise to include in legislation any exact formula for the distribution of Federal funds."1 Also the President's Advisory Committee on Education in 1938 recommended. that the United States Department of Education give the proper weight to financial ability and school-age population in calculating the share of Federal funds to each State." The recent report of the Committee on Problems and Policies of the American Council on Education in discussing this problem concluded that— "The method to be used in arriving at an objective allocation may be written into the legislation, or the general procedure to be employed in arriving at an objective basis of distribution may be described in the legislation, but worked out in detail by administrative action." " There seemed to be complete agreement that certain objective factors be taken into consideration in allocating educational funds whether a specific formula be included in the legislation or not. It was thought that it would be helpful to the committee, and those interested in the Federal aid to education legislation, if a short discussion of alternative formulas and their effect on the distribution was included in the record. If the committee would decide not to include a specific formula for the distribution of Federal funds in a bill, the examination of the different formulas might help clarify or crystallize their ideas on the problem and enable them to propose a formula or the language for the allocation of funds which might more nearly meet their views on the proper distribution of Federal aid to education. It should be kept in mind in considering the formulas discussed below that while the formulas are definite and objective, they are to some extent limited or biased by the data selected. Take the age groups (as for example 3 to 17 years of age, 5 to 21 years of age, or all age groups), they have a varying effect because of the uneven distribution of age groups among the different States. Per capita income would appear to be a completely valid measure of financial ability, yet per capita income is merely arithmetic average and where there is a great inequality in the distribution of income within a State it may be quite an inaccurate measure of the ability of a State to finance education. For example, in a State where there is a high concentration of income in the hands of a few and a great number of people with small incomes as compared with a States where there is more uniform distribution of income, the same average income means something quite different in terms of support of education, especially where the tax systems of the two States vary greatly in terms of being regressive or progressive. Per capita income also might mean something quite different because of the "cost of doing business" for the workers in different areas. In urban and industrial areas because of necessary expenditures for carfare, clothes, and higher rents for the same housing, etc., the per capita income might result in less money being available for other expenditures, such as taxes, as compared with rural areas. Also the other public services for which taxes are required are usually higher in urban and industrial areas and merely comparing educational expenditures (and excluding adult, higher, and "private" institution educational expenditures) with per capita income, does not give a complete and fair picture of any community's willingness or effort to support education. To the extent to which Federal funds are given to the poorer States, the richer States 1 NRPB Development Report 1943, pt. I, p. 74. 2 A summary of Findings and Proposals of the Advisory Committee on Education, p. 20. Federal State Relations in Education, American Council on Education, p. 36. |