As to the effort of the poorer States to support schools, the greatest degree of effort is exerted among the poorer States. Of 14 Southern States all but 3 of them exert Inore than the average effort of the Nation to support education, while, if you take the States at the top, less than one-half of them exert as much effort as the average for the Nation, and yet they have on the average, approximately four to five times as much money per pupil to spend for education as the poorer States that exceed the national effort.

Ever since I have had anything to do with this matter of Federal aid for education-and I began to work here in Washington back in 1934 I have invariably heard somebody say in the course of a hearing that if the States and the other fiscal agencies put their houses in order they could all have as good schools as anybody else. It is completely impossible, in the light of every scientific study made on this question in the last 20 years, to prove that statement. It simply cannot be substantiated. The States that now have the least money for education are the ones that have done the best job putting their fiscal houses in order. For example, with only one-third of the school children in the Southern States, the Southern States have 56 percent of the consolidated schools of the Nation. If the State of Alabama tried to run its rural-school system on the same basis as some of the wealthier States in the North and East, Alabama would have to close the schools in less than 6 months, because they cannot afford any such inefficiency. The same thing is true of your State, Senator, Louisiana, which has largely consolidated its rural schools.

So that this matter of merely having the States want to do something for the schools is not the issue, it is not a question to be moralized about, it is purely a matter of dollars and cents, the ability to pay for the schools.

In answer to this question of putting fiscal houses in order, it is rather impressive to me that every national group that has undertaken the study of this problem has reached the same conclusion. There is the Advisory Committee on Education that was appointed by President Hoover in 1929, and prior to that was the Educational Financial Inquiry Commission. Recently the President's Advisory Committee on Education, the American Youth Commission, the Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association also have made studies. At one time the United States Chamber of Commerce made an investigation of this subject, back in 1922, and the committee of experts selected to study it came to the unanimous opinion that Federal aid for education was an unavoidable necessity. Of course, you may wonder what happened to the report. They referred it to the various chambers of commerce over the country, and the majority of them decided, regardless of what the scientific committee had found, that they would not do anything about it, but the facts are there just the same.

I would like to take a few minutes to go into some of the provisions of the pending bill, S. 1313. I want to do that largely for the sake of the record, because I understand what is considered before the committees sometimes later may have something to do with the interpretation of the statute should the bill become a statute.

Section 1 of this bill contains a statement of findings of fact by the Congress, a somewhat unusual procedure but one which is not unknown in Federal legislation. In this finding of facts the five areas

of need, that I have already enumerated, are set forth, and I think by the time this hearing is concluded they can truly be said to be findings of fact, because the statistical evidence and other kinds of data will have been presented.

Section 2 I consider to be a very important provision, because it sets forth the policy of the Federal Government in dealing with the States. It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to grant Federal assistance to the States for educational purposes without Federal control over educational policies of States and localities. It is specifically provided that the organization and administration of schools, the control over processes of education, the control and determination of curricula of the schools, methods of instruction employed in them and selection of the personnel employed by the States are reserved exclusively for the States.

In connection with that, section 13 (b) should be read. I would be glad if the committee would note that. It provides that

no political or civil rights or activities of any teacher or school administrator shall be restricted or affected in any way because of any financial benefit accruing to such teacher or administrator from funds appropriated pursuant to this Act. This provision seems to be essential to the complete elimination of Federal control over State educational policies and personnel.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by that that a teacher may receive pay from the Federal Government but the administration of his activities are entirely within the hands of the State administrators? Dr. DAWSON. And the local board of education, under State law. The CHAIRMAN. And the educational policy is entirely in the hands of the local administrators?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes; under State law. It is purely a State and local problem to control the schools. The need, after all, is not for new machinery with which to run the educational system; the need is for the financial resources with which to make opportunities available to the children.

That the Federal Government can operate a program without undesirable control has been demonstrated since 1862 through the land-grant colleges. There are 69 of them and approximately onethird of their revenue comes from Federal appropriations. I haven't heard any complaint about undue influence or domination over those colleges. I cite that as an example of what the Government can do if it adopts a policy consistent with the idea of State and local autonomy in the educational administration. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government cannot make the States do anything in education that they do not want to do anyway, because they cannot set up requirements that those States cannot avoid accepting if they do not want them.

In the decision of the Supreme Court involving the constitutionality of the A. A. A., the court cited Federal aids for vocational education as an example of aids the Congress can grant. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Federal grants for a field over which the Federal Government does not have direct control. Part of the A. A. A. was held invalid because the Federal Government undertook, through appropriation of money, to take over powers which the Constitution had reserved to the States. seems clear that if the Federal Government, through the mere expenditure of money, tried to take over the control of the school system

It

its action would be held unconstitutional. That opinion of the Supreme Court in the A. A. A. case, it seems to me, ought to be rather consoling to those who are very much afraid of Federal control of education.

I wish to refer to section 3. For the purposes enumerated under the findings of fact, $300,000,000 annually, or so much thereof as may be needed, is authorized to be appropriated.

I now direct your attention to section 4. One of the most difficult problems in connection with the Federal aid legislation is providing for a method of apportioning Federal funds to the State. Any one of several methods could be utilized. It should be borne in mind, however, that the purpose of S. 1313 is to allocate money to States and localities in proportion to need. Need could be measured by an objective formula written into the law. However, in providing for the needs in defense areas, for the children of migratory workers, and for children residing on Federal reservations and properties, it would be extremely difficult to write a formula that would be effective and efficient in getting the money to the places most needed. Furthermore, it is not probable that any single formula for apportioning money to the States on an established basis would be valid over a long period of years. For these reasons it seems best that provision be made for the appointment of a board of technical experts which, working under certain specific directions put into the law, would determine the needs of the States for Federal funds for education. Now such provision has been made in S. 1313, section 4.

It seems fitting that the persons empowered to determine the amount of money needed by each of the States should not be concerned directly with the administration of the Federal act providing for cooperation with the States. Accordingly, the sole duty of the Board of Apportionment is to determine the financial needs of each of the States. The Board would be in session not to exceed 60 days annually. After a certification to the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount of money to go to each State, it has nothing further whatever to do with the administration of Federal aid. All other Federal responsibilities are placed in the hands of the United States Commissioner of Education.

In allocating funds to the States the Board of Apportionment has to do two things: (1) Determine the educational burdens of the respective States and (2) to determine the financial ability of the States to bear these burdens. The various factors enumerated in section 4 of S. 1313 are to assist the Board of Apportionment in determining these two things. On the one hand, the Board of Apportionment is concerned solely with the technical question under the law of determining how much money goes to the States, and, on the other hand, the Commissioner of Education, who has the administrative authority with respect to this act, had no power to determine the amount of money that goes to a State. Therefore, it cannot be charged that he could use undue influence over educational policies because he could determine the amount of money. The Board has no administrative authority; the Commission has no authority to set the amount of

money.

Section 5 merely provides that the money should go directly from the Treasury of the United States to the treasurer of each of the respective States in four equal installments annually and that the State treasurer shall account for all moneys received as a trustee of funds for

the United States. That is the provision that is commonly found in Federal statutes.

One of the most important provisions of S. 1313 has to do with the acceptance by the State of the Federal grants. It is provided that each State through its legislature shall accept the provisions of the Federal act before being entitled to receive funds. The act of acceptance shall provide that the State's chief educational authoritythat is, the State superintendent, State commissioner of education, or State board of education-as may be provided by the State law, shall represent the State in the administration of funds; that an adequate system of auditing shall be provided; that the State educational authority shall make reports to the Commissioner of Education; that where separate public schools are maintained for separate races a just and equitable apportionment of funds shall be made for the benefit of public schools for minority races. Just and equitable apportionment is defined in section 14 (d) as any plan which will result in expenditures for the benefit of the minority racial groups in proportion of said funds not less than the proportion that the minority racial groups in such State bears to the total population of the State. For example, in Arkansas 25 percent of the Federal moneys would be spent for Negroes, because 25 percent of the population is Negro. That has nothing to do with what the States may do in the expenditures of their own State and local funds except, as provided, that the minority racial group not receive a smaller proportion of said funds than they did in 1940.

Senator ELLENDER. Dr. Dawson, would you interpret that to mean, also, that no matter what percentage of the minority race is in attendance in these schools the population must be the yardstick?

Dr. DAWSON. That is the way it is stated in the bill. It would be possible to put it on the average daily attendance basis, but the principle would be the same.

Senator ELLENDER. It would?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes. It would result in less money going to Negroes, because there is a smaller percentage of their population in average daily attendance.

Senator ELLENDER. Now, as I understand the definition that you referred to-in 14 (d), is it?

Dr. DAWSON. Section 14 (d); yes.

Senator ELLENDER. The yardstick there would have to be the racial population?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. As between whites and Negroes?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. You know as well as I do that the proportion of colored pupils in attendance at schools is much less than the attendance of white pupils.

Dr. DAWSON. Yes; it is somewhat less, especially in the high schools. Senator ELLENDER. Then the per capita would be greater for the minority races than for the whites.

Dr. DAWSON. Yes; the per capita as compared to the attendance at the schools.

Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

Dr. DAWSON. Of course the principle of dividing it on a population basis would still be followed if you divided it on the average daily

attendance rather than the population itself, but there would be a difference in the amount of money for the reason you stated. I would like to point out, however, that this provision is the provision that was written into the original Harrison-Black bill by the Senate committee and was carried over into S. 1305, so that it is not new in appearing before the Congress.

Senator ELLENDER. Dr. Dawson, if it is not too large an order, I wonder if you could tell us the essential differences between the pending bill and the other bills pertaining to Federal aid that we have held hearings on? The idea is to use as much of these other hearings as possible. To be frank with you, I do not see why the committee should have a rehashing of all of this testimony that we have already heard. I have been in the Senate now 4%1⁄2 years, and I think this is the fourth hearing on this same matter.

Dr. DAWSON. This is the third.

Senator ELLENDER. I thought it was the fourth bill. There have been quite a few volumes written on it. It might be apropos for us to use as much of the other hearings as possible, in order to tie it up to this bill.

Dr. DAWSON. The new situations which have not been before the committee previously, of course, have to do with this defense program, the new problems arising with respect to Negro schools as the result of these Federal court decisions, and the fact that 17 States maintain separate school systems.

Senator ELLENDER. Now, with respect to schools in and about defense areas all of us hope that the war will end this year or early next year but if the Government decides to expand school facilities or build new ones where these defense projects are now in full bloom or are to be located, and in the course of a few years they are dismantled, they cease to exist, what would be the situation then? What would become of the millions spent for temporary relief? Have you thought of that?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes, sure.

Senator ELLENDER. Would it not be best for us to try to induce the Government to do more of this defense work in the communities where the children and people now are rather than further concentrate it?

Dr. DAWSON. That may be, Senator Ellender, but the fact is they have already concentrated these people around these areas. Here are 265,000 children without school facilities, or sufficient school facilities. Of course, what you are talking about is a matter of policy which the Government itself would have to determine. Thus far they have proceeded in such way that concentration is actually taking place.

Senator ELLENDER. You folks would be a big factor in causing the Government to do the things that ought to be done; that is, not to concentrate so much of these defense projects in one area but to spread them over the country.

Dr. DAWSON. Of course, what we are trying to do is to face the situation as it has been presented.

Senator ELLENDER. As it is, and as it may be aggravated.

Dr. DAWSON. I do not know that it could be aggravated any worse than that we do not have schools.

Senator ELLENDER. If you provide facilities, it will attract them. If you provide a little honey, the bees will go for it, you know.