trained first in schools and then in colleges. It will be won or lost in the hospitals and in the health services. You know what is the relationship to war of doctors and all of the other technologists who go with the medical profession.

In a thousand and one ways, skill is required. I am not saying anything that is any more true in wartime economy than it is in peacetime economy, because, as you probably know, our statistics of occupations show that for 30 or 40 years it is the skilled occupations and the professions, that have been growing rapidly, both in numbers and percentage, while the numbers and percentage of unskilled labor are decreasing. Each census shows that to be a fact.

So, in a word, what I am saying is this, that ours is a highly complex technological economy, the very keystone of which is large numbers of highly trained men. That is true, whether in a peacetime economy, and it is dramatically and terribly true in a period of warfare, terribly true if you do not have the trained men, because you run into the bottleneck of an insufficient number of trained men.

But I would like to suggest one other thing. Warfare is not only a matter of front-line fighting by technicians supported by technicians behind the lines. Warfare has become a matter of combat between whole populations. Fifty civilians have been killed in England for every soldier who has been killed on that island.

Under modern warfare every citizen has to be alert; he has to have some knowledge; he has to be willing to put his shoulder to the wheel, whether it is in resisting propaganda, which has become one of the most effective instruments of warfare, or whether it is in extinguishing an incendiary bomb. Every citizen has to do his part. It is a terrible fact to comprehend but, nevertheless, it is true.

Senator ELLENDER. Hasn't all of that developed recently, in the last couple of years?

Dr. NORTON. I would say no. We have come to recognize it recently. Of course, the fact that Hitler recognized it first is the reason for much of our difficulty now. But this is really the culmination of a century of industrial revolution.

Senator ELLENDER. To what extent would you say that the German children have received better educational facilities than those in this country? If you follow your argument through, the Germans must have had better education than we have had by a hundred fold? Dr. NORTON. I am afraid I would have to say that for a considerably longer period than we have recognized the importance of vocational training, Germany has recognized it. And I would also say that one of the first elements in the Nazi program after Hitler came into power was the installation of a program that trained the German youth for technological pursuits.

Senator ELLENDER. Then, you would agree with the assertion that I made this morning that we have been totally deficient in our vocational training for our youth, and that we have made a sad mistake in educating too many so-called white-collar girls and boys rather than technicians?

Dr. NORTON. I would generally agree with it. I would not quite like to say totally deficient, because the Federal Government has already had enough intelligence to help, through the Smith-Hughes Act, in developing some pretty effective vocational educational pro

visions in our communities.

317387-41-11

And it is fortunate that was done. We are drawing upon those facilities right now in our defense program. But you are basically right that the emphasis on technical training and vocational training was far less than it should have been.

I would like to add one thing. I do not think it is a matter of "either-or;" either vocational or general education. I would be afraid in a democracy of a person who is just trained to operate a machine or who is just a chemist or who is just a doctor. I want him also to have some social understanding and intelligence so that he may be a good citizen. I want him to know something about how to raise children, how to analyze propaganda, and to do those other things that a good citizen must do. I don't think it is a case of choosing between those two. I would rather say that we are not efficient in educating for practical living, one area. And the sooner we "jack that up" and put it on a higher level of efficiency, the better. And we cannot afford to wait.

I think the schools should accept their fair share of responsibility for too much emphasis on strictly academic, white-collar content. On the other hand, I think it is no more than fair to say also that one of the reasons why some superintendents of schools lost their jobs during the 1930's was that they insisted, in spite of the depression, in maintaining things such as vocational education.

You know we had a lot of very economical citizens who talked a lot about economy during the 1930's. They pointed out that you could not get a job even if you had training. And it was true in too many cases, because we were, of course, in a depression, and whether you had training or not, it was hard to get a job.

I do not want to place full responsibility on the schools. They ought to take their fair share. I would rather say that this is something that our whole culture, all of our citizens, including educators should take account of. We should improve general education. We should not neglect the matter of producing good citizens, but we should place far greater emphasis upon preparation for real work and the kind of jobs that are demanded of people when they go out into the world in an economy such as we have. I would go with you basically on your proposition; yes.

As a final point I would like to go a step further. I have related this importance of economic strength to warfare and the ability to survive in a world where nothing but power seems to count. But now I want to relate the importance of maintaining adequate educational facilities to a problem that I think we must all anticipate. We don't know just when it will come, whether it will be in a year, in 10 years or in 20 years. I mean the period of post-war readjustment. Now, may I invite your attention to two or three facts?

The first one is that we have really not solved the unemployment question in this country. What we have done has been to put a lot of unemployed people to work at an extremely uneconomic task, even though it may be necessary, of manufacturing munitions, tanks, airplanes, and so on. We have put them to work temporarily. And we certainly hope that this period will pass.

Take the whole youth problem. I think we have something very well worth while in the Ñ. Y. A. and C. C. C. and those services. But they constitute no final answer to the problem of youth that we encounter in this country-youth unemployed, youth not in school,

youth having nothing to do, feeling that they were left out of the world of work and had no chance to achieve their highest aspirations. We have not solved the problem of closing up the gap between actual and potential productivity. In other words, I think it is a fact that you will all agree with that when this period of defense or war-if it becomes that closes, then we are going to encounter some of the most serious problems that this Nation ever encountered. And they were pretty serious during the 1930's.

Now, someone said earlier in these hearings that Government should show vision. I ask you gentlemen who are in position to do that, to show vision for our Government. We cannot postpone schooling or partly postpone it for 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 years.

I don't know what the answers are to these problems. But I might make one suggestion; that is, that we will not solve them with any less education, with any less intelligence, with any less skill, than we have at the present time.

I would rather say that we must maintain our educational capital in this time of crisis, whether it be economic research or whether it be vocational training or whether it be general education for citizenship. We cannot afford to postpone or weaken these elements of national strength.

So I would suggest that in this period we must put education along with certain other essential services that must be effectively maintained if we are going to see defense as it really is. In other words, we cannot make the mistake of saying that if we just produce enough tanks, if we just produce enough airplanes, everything will be all right. It would be irony indeed to win a war with tanks and airplanes and then lose the post-war period because we did not have enough intelligence. And, after all, democracy is a form of government that takes a lot of intelligence if it is going to be effectively operated.

There is a serious danger that we will cut off our sources of educational strength and economic strength.

I say that because the Federal Government under its present tax program is planning to tax as it never did before. I need not tell you that we are contemplating a total tax bill of $22,000,000,000 next year. If the Federal bill follows what the newspapers predict now, there will be twelve or thirteen billion dollars of that raised by the Federal Government. Even though it may be necessary for the Federal Government to raise that money, it makes it just that much harder to hold the educational line and financial line in the States and localities. If we do not recognize that fact, if we do not give help to communities that need help, we are going to repeat some of the educational mistakes that we made in the last war, when education over a period of years seriously slumped. And I doubt if we can afford to do that in a period such as this.

Furthermore, we have no idea as to how long this emergency period is going to continue. Suppose we adopt a policy of providing less for education and find out that this is not an emergency of a year or 2 or 3 years but one of 10 or 15 or 20 years. We may have to hold our ramparts for 20 or 30 years. If Hitler is successful, it could happen; even if he is only partly successful.

So I urge upon you that we not adopt any policy of postponing education, or of a moratorium on education. I say this not because

I am in education. Of course, we all believe in our own work. But I say this in terms of general national welfare because of the considerations which we have emphasized.

I will close with one final point that I would like to make about a feature of the bill.

Nothing has been said about the matter so far in the hearing. One feature in the bill is a highly commendable one. I refer to section 11, which provides that 1 percent of the money appropriated under this bill is available for research and administration.

I doubt if we can spend any proportion of this appropriation more effectively than in trying to be sure that the remaining $297,000,000 is spent well.

I want to emphasize the desirability and importance of the clause which suggests that we shall not just spend this money, but that we shall make the studies, that we shall conduct the research that should go along with this expenditure, so that we will know that it is being spent most effectively.

In the field of industry and in many other fields we have clearly recognized the importance of research, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year. We have begun to recognize the importance of research in education, but not to the degree that we should. I want to emphasize the point that this bill is a good one for the reasons that have been stated already, but also that it is a good one because of the provisions of section 11.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Dr. NORTON. If there are any other questions, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to try to answer them.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Zook?

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE F. ZOOK, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, FORMERLY UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Zook, for the record, will you please state your name in full, and then your position and former position?

Dr. Zook. My name is George F. Zook. I am at the present time the president of the American Council on Education. I am coming here today, however, in an individual capacity and not as the representative of the American Council on Education.

That body, as perhaps you know, is made up of 89 organizations which belong to the council and something over 414 individual institutions, State school systems, and city school systems. With such a great diversity of organizations and institutions as belong to the council, I take it that it is not surprising that the council has not found it desirable itself to try to pronounce on major problems which came before Congress in the field of education.

I should like to emphasize, however, that all of its numerous committees and commissions have extended opportunity to do this kind of thing. One of its best known commissions, namely, the American Youth Commission, whose director I think you heard this morning, several years ago made a strong pronouncement in favor of Federal aid to education.

That Commission, as perhaps Dr. Reeves told you, is made up of a body of outstanding civic and educational leaders who, perhaps, at

the time they began their study of this problem were divided in their opinion, but at the end they came unanimously to the conclusion that Federal aid to education was both necessary and inevitable.

I wish, first of all, as a result of my experience in the study of this problem, to offer simply a few words of testimony in favor of this bill. It so happens that I was connected with the United States Office of Education from the year 1920 to 1925, as a member of the staff, and in that connection had a great deal to do with the distribution of Federal aid to the colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts.

Later I was a member of the commission which President Hoover appointed, known as the National Advisory Committee on Education. This committee was one of the first and most important organizations to come to the conclusion that Federal aid to education is necessary. Finally, I was a member of the more recent committee appointed by President Roosevelt to look into the necessity of Federal aid to education. I think you have probably already had an opportunity to hear from Dr. Reeves, who was the chairman and director of that committee, concerning the strong conclusions at which that committee arrived as a result of its 2 years of study, from 1936 to 1938.

As a matter of fact, this problem of Federal aid to education has been studied intensively by a number of important committees and commissions during the past 20 years; so that the information which has already been brought to your attention and which will be brought to your attention before you conclude your session, grows out of the careful expenditure of large sums of money, partly by the Federal Government and partly by privately controlled agencies. All of these committees, so far as I know, have uniformly arrived at the conclusion that something in the way of Federal aid to education is necessary.

I speak of this in part because we now arrive at conclusions related to educational matters, as I am sure has been indicated in the testimony before you, as a result of a study of these problems. It was not very many years and from that time clear back to the beginning of history when what was done in education was a matter of opinion and belief. One man's opinion was likely to be regarded as being about as good as that of another. Sometimes those opinions and beliefs were dignified as educational philosophy. But, nevertheless, they were the opinions of individuals.

During the last 50 years in particular we have begun to develop very considerable research facilities in education. And, therefore, we come to our conclusions today not merely on the basis of mere opinion but upon the basis of extensive study of the situation.

Furthermore I would like to say that at the time the study of the problem of Federal aid to education was begun there was a great deal of difference of opinion among prominent educators. As a result of the tremendous amount of information and facts which have been produced by these studies over the period of the past 20 years there is today very little difference of opinion among educators as to the necessity and the desirability of something of this kind. I do not mean to say that you cannot find a single educator who will disagree with it; but the number and the proportion of men and women whose business it is to be acquainted with problems of this kind and who are against Federal aid to education has declined appreciably, and it has declined as this overpowering information concerning the necessity of it has become better and better known.