training for the men who work on each of three shifts. Now, the typical situation is this: The children use those facilities, that is, the high-school children use those facilities from, let us say, 8 o'clock in the morning until 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and from that time on until the next morning the facilities are used by the adult workers in the defense industries.

Consideration is now being given as to how to meet the defense training program for next year. It is perfectly clear to all of us who have been working on this program that the most important single area in the defense training where we must get expansion is in related training for workers who are employed in defense industries. The schools cannot be somewhere else, they have to be there where the workers live.

Senator ELLENDER. Doctor, it is natural to assume, is it not, that if the Government keeps on concentrating defense projects in certain localities that $115,000,000 and maybe $200,000,000 would not suffice? I wonder if you are in a position to tell us, since you are connected with O. P. M., whether or not any efforts are being made so as to spread this defense work in communities that can do the work and that may be in need of such projects to maintain them?

Dr. REEVES. I do know this: While I cannot quote you figures, the pattern has changed to a very large extent in the last 2 or 3 months. For example, I recall a few months ago, the W. P. A. reported that 80 percent of the people on W. P. A. rolls lived in the areas where there were only 20 percent of the defense contracts. That pattern has changed, as I say, markedly. As I recall the later figures, the W. P. A. reports that there are now about 70 percent of the W. P. A. workers living in the areas where there are 30 percent of the defense contracts. That would represent an improvementfrom my point of view, a very marked improvement-in the last 2 or 3 months. The trend is very definite, very clear-cut in the direction in which I am sure you favor and I favor. Very great efforts have been made, I know, to bring about this change in the situation. Senator ELLENDER. To spread them around.

Dr. REEVES. That is right. It is very clear that the last reservoir, the great reservoir we are going to have to draw upon let us say 12 months from now is in the very States that would benefit the most by this bill that is now before you.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you better pray for a continuation of the war if you ever expect anything for the places where some of us live. Is that what you mean?

Dr. REEVES. I would not go that far, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Reeves, having broken in there with the remark, which was probably out of order, have you come to a stopping place?

Dr. REEVES. I have come to the end, Senator. I have no other comments to make, unless you wish to ask questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Reeves.

(The memorandum submitted by Dr. Reeves is as follows:)

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED AT HEARINGS ON S. 1313

The Advisory Committee on Education was originally appointed by the President on September 19, 1936, for the purpose of studying the existing program of Federal aid for vocational education and preparing a report with recommendations. The Committee was proceeding with this task when, in April 1937,

the President decided to broaden the functions and enlarge the membership of the Committee. The President requested the Committee to give extended consideration to the whole subject of Federal relationship to State and local conduct of education and to prepare a report. The Committee completed its work in 1939. I was asked to serve as Chairman of the Committee on Vocational Education and later as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education. In view of the importance of this assignment, the names and connections of other members of the Advisory Committee on Education are of interest.

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Mr. William Rowland Allen is personnel director for L. S. Ayres & Co., which operates a large department store in Indianapolis, Ind.

Dr. Edmund deS. Brunner is professor of rural education, Teachers College, Columbia University. He has directed many surveys of rural life and is thoroughly familiar with the problem of rural education.

The Honorable Oscar L. Chapman is Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior, in which capacity he has supervision over the affairs of the Office of Education and various other bureaus.

Miss Elizabeth Christmas is secretary-treasurer of the National Women's Trade Union League and has served on various Federal advisory committees.

Mr. Gordon R. Clapp is now general manager of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn.

The Honorable Ernest G. Draper is now a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. At the time he was appointed to membership on the Advisory Committee on Education he was Assistant Secretary of Com

merce.

Miss Alice L. Edwards is a well-known economist of New York City, formerly executive secretary of the American Home Economics Association.

Dr. Mordecai Ezekiel is economic adviser to the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. George L. Googe is southern representative of the American Federation of Labor. He is a native of Savannah, Ga., and a member of the International Printing Pressman's Union. He has represented the American Federation of Labor as a member of numerous governmental committees and conferences. Dr. Franklin P. Graham is president of the University of North Carolina. At the time the social security legislation was being formulated, he served as chairman of the Advisory Council on Economic Security.

Dr. Luther H. Gulick is a director of the Institute of Public Administration, New York City, and Eaton Professor of municipal science and administration at Columbia University. Since 1935 he has been director of the Regent's Inquiry snto the Character and Cost of Public Education in the State of New York. He is the author of the recent report of the Regent's Inquiry entitled "Education for American Life."

Father George Johnson is director of the department of education, National Catholic Welfare Conference, and associate professor of education at Catholic University. He is a member of the American Youth Commission of the American Council on Education, and formerly served on the National Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Hoover.

Dr. Charles H. Judd, at the time of his appointment, had served as head of the department of education of the University of Chicago for nearly 30 years. Throughout this period, Dr. Judd has also served on many important inquiries into educational policies, including the National Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Hoover.

Mr. Thomas Kennedy is secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Workers of America and was formerly Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania.

Miss Katharine F. Lenroot is Chief of the Children's Bureau, United States Department of Labor.

Dr. Arthur B. Moehlman is professor of administration and supervision, School of Education, University of Michigan, and editor of "The Nation's Schools." He has participated in numerous educational surveys and is author of several books on educational administration.

Dr. Henry C. Taylor is nationally known as an agricultural economist. He is now director of the Farm Foundation of Chicago and is active in the American Country Life Association. He was formerly director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. T. J. Thomas is a railway executive of many years experience. He is now assistant to the president of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., and president of a subsidiary, the Valier Coal Co.

Mr. Jchn H. Zink is president of the Heat & Power Corporation of Baltimore and also of Becker Bros. & Sons Co., of the same city. He has served as president of the Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association and as general secretary of the Construction League of the United States.

Dr. George F. Zook, who has served as vice chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education is president of the American Council on Education. Formerly, he was president of the University of Akron and later was United States Commissioner of Education. He also served on the National Advisory Committee on Education appointed by President Hoover.

To summarize, of the 21 members of the Committee, 8 were from educational institutions or the educational profession, and 13 were laymen. Five of the 13 laymen held positions in the Federal Government, 3 were from the field of business, 3 from the field of organized labor, and two had other occupations. The Committee was thus made up largely of laymen and largely of persons not regularly in the service of the Federal Government.

The Committee was assisted in its work by a temporary staff of specialists in education, economics, and public administration, who prepared studies of various aspects of Federal relations to education for the consideration of the Committee. The following is a list of the staff studies published by the Committee:

1. Education in the Forty-eight States. Payson Smith, Frank W. Wright, and associates.

2. Organization and Administration of Public Education. Walter D. Cocking and Charles H. Gilmore.

3. State Personnel Administration: With Special Reference to Departments of Education. Katherine A. Frederic.

5. Principles and Methods of Distributing Federal Aid for Education. Mort, Eugene S. Lawler, and associates.

Paul R.

Newton

6. The Extent of Equalization Secured through State School Funds. Edwards and Herman G. Richey.

Robert R.

7. Selected Legal Problems in Providing Federal Aid for Education. Hamilton.

8. Vocational Education. John Dale Russell and associates.

9. The Land-Grant Colleges. George A. Works and Barton Morgan.

10. Vocational Rehabilitation of the Physically Disabled. Lloyd E. Blauch. 11. Library Service. Carleton B. Joeckel.

12. Special Problems of Negro Education. Doxey A. Wilkerson. 13. The National Youth Administration.

Harvey.

Palmer O. Johnson and Oswald L.

14. Educational Activities of the Works Progress Administration. Campbell, Frederick H. Blair, and Oswald L. Harvey.

Doak S.

15. Public Education in the District of Columbia. Lloyd E. Blauch and J. Orin Powers.

16. Public Education in the Territories and Outlying Possessions. Lloyd E. Blauch.

17. Education of Children on Federal Reservations. Lloyd E. Blauch and William L. Iversen.

18. Educational Service for Indiana. Lloyd E. Blauch.

19. Research in the United States Office of Education. Charles H. Judd. 20. Equal Educational Opportunity for Youth. Newton Edwards. Published by the American Youth Commission. A revision of a preliminary staff study by Dr. Edwards for the Advisory Committee on Education.

These studies were prepared in preliminary form during the summer of 1937 and the findings were presented to the Committee in October of that year. Members of the Committee also met with representatives of many groups and received their views both through conferences and in the form of written statements. The Committee then proceeded with the drafting of its own report. After extensive discussion of the recommendations on the part of all members of the Committee, the report was adopted and transmitted to the President in February 1938. He immediately sent it on for the consideration of the Congress.

PRESENT APPLICABILITY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

Although no additional data have been collected and no additional studies made by the Advisory Committee since 1938, there is no reason to believe that the conditions and needs portrayed by the Committee have changed for the better to any appreciable degree. For this reason, the findings and recommendations

of the Advisory Committee are as applicable to the situation today as they were 3 years ago.

It is true that many of the States have experienced some degree of recovery in school finance since the investigations of the Committee. The appalling differences in educational opportunities are today as great as they were 3 or more years ago. In fact, several authoritative studies have shown that these differences have existed to relatively the same degree for decades. From all that is known about the relative taxpaying ability and economic resources of the several States, there is no reason to believe that, in the absence of Federal participation in the financing of public education, there will be any substantial reduction in the inequalities in educational opportunities among the States insofar as these inequalities depend upon financial resources.

As evidence that the amount of difference among the States in the ability to support education and other public services is relatively permanent, the following facts are cited:1 Using 5 to 17 years old as 100, the indexes of the richest State (excepting Nevada) and poorest State in 1900 were 261 and 25 respectively; in 1912, 228 and 28; in 1922, 184 and 34; in 1934,2 213 and 34. On the basis of economic resources in relation to the number of children of educable age, the relative ability of various regions to support education since 1920 is shown in exhibit 1.

EXHIBIT 1.-Relative ability of the States to finance education, 1920-34 [Based on index of weighted economic resources per unit of educational need. Ability of United States equals 100. Taken from Norton, John K., and Norton, Margaret A.. "Wealth, Children and Education," pp. 40-41]

That the relative differences in the amount of support going to public elementary and secondary schools are fairly constant is shown in exhibit 2. It will be seen EXHIBIT 2.-Current expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance, 1931-32, 1935-36, 1937-38

1 Norton, John K., and Norton, Margaret A., "Wealth, Children and Education", pp. 18 and 43. 2 Based on weighted index of economic resources per unit of educational need.

EXHIBIT 2.---Current expenditures per pupil in average daily attendanc", 1931–32, 1935-36, 1937-38-Continued

from that table that, although all States except North Dakota and Colorado have shown improvement from 1936 to 1938, the relative differences among the States have changed to an insignificant degree since 1932. The rich are still rich and the poor are still poor, and remain in about their same relative positions.

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ARISING SINCE THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

Within recent months at least two conditions have arisen that give new impetus to the need for Federal aid to the States for public schools: (1) The influx of population into areas of defense activities and industries, and (2) the requirement by recent Federal Court decisions that salaries of Negro teachers be equalized with salaries of white teachers for equal qualifications.

The first of these situations has grown out of the necessities of our nationaldefense program and is clearly a Federal responsibility. The second of these situations is new only in the sense that court decisions interpreting the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States as affecting equal educational opportunities for Negroes have made necessary the rectification of a situation that has long needed attention and which was clearly pointed out in the report of the Advisory Committee on Education.

It should be pointed out that since the matter of increased financial support for educational opportunities for Negroes is now a constitutional matter so declared by the Federal courts, it becomes a matter of Federal obligation to see that the constitutional requirements become effective. That obligation is clearly a financial use.

Inasmuch as other witnesses will present the facts concerning these two situations, I shall not do so. I do, however, wish to say to the committee that I heartily approve of the provisions of S. 1313 respecting these matters.

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AMONG AND WITHIN THE STATES

The major part of my remarks will be addressed to the need for Federal financial assistance to the States for the equalization of educational opportunities as is