Mississippi

From a letter by Knox M. Broom, State supervisor, agricultural schools and junior colleges:

"I am pleased to advise that the State appropriation for the support of common schools in Mississippi is made on a 50-50 basis between:

(a) Per capita (educable children, white and colored between the ages of 6 and 21).

66

(b) Equalization fund, which is determined on a budget deficit basis-all funds including per capita, a uniform county tax levy, poll tax, etc., set up against a maximum program approved by the State board of education and any deficit is made up out of the equalizing fund.

"The legislature, now in session, has increased the common school appropriation for the next biennium by $2,000,000. The division between the two funds and method of disbursement same as outlined above."

Missouri

From a letter by Lloyd W. King, director of finance:

"The laws of this State provide that the State school apportionment shall be made on the same basis for colored pupils as for white but calculated separately. However, when the money reaches the school districts, there is no restriction in our laws which would require school boards to keep a separate accounting of their expenditures for the white and colored schools."

Oklahoma

From a letter by Marshall Gregory, director of financial research: “Our equalization law applies to both white and colored schools alike. I believe the statistics will bear out the statement that the State of Oklahoma handles the two races on more nearly the same basis financially than any other Southern or semi-Southern State.

"I am enclosing a copy of bulletin 145, which contains a copy of House bill 6 and the administrative regulations used with it.

"Oklahoma is organized on the district basis except for minority schools (both white and colored) which are on a county basis."

See also the School Finance Law, Bulletin 145, 1937.

Tennessee

From a letter by C. A. McCanless, director of school finance:

"In accordance with your request, I am sending to you under separate cover a copy of the School Laws of Tennessee. The supplement includes the new school appropriations and method of distributing the same. The cost of the minimum . elementary school program referred to in the supplement includes the cost of education for white and colored students. The law permits no 'color line' to be drawn in Tennessee except that schools for white and Negro pupils must be separate."

See also the supplement to the Public School Laws of Tennessee, 1937, page 47 following.

Texas

From a letter by Myrtle L. Tanner, director, division of information and statistics:

"There has been no law made in this State to bring about a more equitable distribution of school funds between white and colored people.

"The policy of sending out the money here does not bring about the proper use of the funds, since the money sent on the per capita basis and the local board has the right to determine the expenditures."

Virginia

From a letter by C. E. Myers, supervisor of research:

"The Virginia State school law ignores the race issue. The general law provides for separate schools and defines a Negro. The State board of education likewise acts as if white and Negro schools and children were on an equal footing. Hence, our Virginia Negro school problem is strictly a local issue. We have a State supervisor of negro schools who is a white man, and an assistant Negro supervisor, a Negro.

"Some of our counties also make no distinction on a racial basis in the administration of Negro and white schools, and there are cases where the Negro schools cost more.

"Many of the comparisons made between white and Negro schools are invalid. For example, a teacher-load comparison is almost always on an enrollment basis, whereas the valid comparison is on an attendance basis. The average daily attendance per teacher is often smaller in the Negro schools, though there is little difference for the State as a whole. I see very few cases of discrimination which are fundamentally due to race prejudice. The Negro teachers in one county, the best to be had, ranged in school achievement by standard test from third grade to seventh grade, averaging a little below the fifth-grade standard. They were paid low salaries, but comparatively more than they were worth as teachers.

"The basic problems are those of birth, food, clothing, shelter, and teachers. When all the facts are known in most particular situations, my guess is that the schools are about as adequate as the authorities know how to make them, and reasons can usually be discovered to account for differences that in general apply to whites and Negroes alike."

West Virginia

From a letter by Richard E. Hyde, director of research:

"Under separate cover I am sending to you a copy of our school code. calling your attention specifically to the following provisions:

I am

"Page 11, section 2; page 22, section 9; pages 30-31, section 15; page 30, section 14; page 89, sections 1 and 2.

"Notice the following on page 44, second paragraph:

"Salaries of colored teachers shall be the same as the salaries of other teachers in the same district, independent district, city, or town, with the same training and experience, and holding similar credentials. Any board of education failing to comply with the provisions of this paragraph may be compelled to do so by mandamus.'

"You see that this provision of the law quite clearly protects teachers against salary discrimination because of race. The provision not only refers to the State minimum scale, but to all scales in excess of the State minimum. In closing I might mention the fact that the average salary of Negro teachers in this State is slightly more than that of white teachers, since the average qualifications of Negro teachers are also slightly higher than those of white teachers. It is evident that the law is being observed."

See also School Laws of West Virginia, June 1935, pages referred to in quotation from letter.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL V. McNUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY

The CHAIRMAN. Governor McNutt, will you state your name and title, and what other information you want to show in the record? Mr. McNUTT. My name is Paul V. McNutt. I am Federal Security Administrator.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you today for the purpose of discussing the broad principles involved in S. 1313. I shall confine myself to a general statement because I know from the qualifications of other witnesses who will appear before you that the technical aspects and detailed justification of this measure will be most adequately covered. Might I, at the outset, state that I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with S. 1313 and urge your favorable consideration of legislation which will achieve its purposes. I recognize the gravity of any recommendation for the expenditure of Federal moneys for nonmilitary purposes. It is with the full realization that we must husband our financial resources and put first things first that I recommend the expenditures which will be necessary under this measure. I feel that correction of educational inadequacies is so vital to national welfare that it is one

of the things which must be put first, and that its remedy cannot await the end of an emergency of indeterminate duration.

The need for the legislation did not arise with the emergency but has been considerably intensified by it. I could not recommend remedial legislation which would touch only areas where defense activities have created problems; I am convinced that we must remedy the situation wherever it is found.

I have long advocated that the Federal Government must cooperate with the States in the financing of public elementary and secondary schools to the extent necessary to make possible a reasonable and defensible program of educational opportunity throughout the Nation.

There is ample evidence that the only practical way educational opportunities can be equalized among and within the several States is through a program of Federal-State cooperation. The States have of necessity long ago recognized that marked differences exist in the ability of their various communities to support an adequate educational program. The Federal Government must recognize the marked differences in the ability of the various States. The equalization of these differences on the State level has been assumed by the States to the extent of their several abilities. But the States, just as communities in States, differ greatly in financial ability. On a national level, the equalization of educational opportunities must rest on the Federal Government. There is a vital and proper national interest in the equalization of educational opportunities among the States.

This problem of equalization can and will be solved without impairment of State control of the scope and content of the educational program by grants to those States in greatest need of financial assistance. The fiscal and administrative aspects of the problem are no longer conjectural. These aspects have been fully investigated by the President's Advisory Committee on Education, the unchallenged findings of which I understand will be presented to you by Dr. Reeves, chairman of that Committee.

The conclusions on which this legislation is based were uniformly reached. From 1921 down to the present time from a long series of very serious and competent efforts, the financial conditions back of the support of public education in this country have been ascertained. This included studies by the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission 1921-25; the National Advisory Committee on Education, appointed by President Hoover, 1929-31; the National Survey of School Finance, carried on first by the United States Office of Education and later completed by the American Council on Education, 1932-35; the Advisory Committee on Education, appointed by President Roosevelt, 1937-38; the American Youth Commission, 1935-41.

The progress of American education is inextricably interwoven with Federal aid. From the earliest days of the Republic the Federal Government has made financial contributions, directly or indirectly, to the States for the establishment and maintenance of public educational institutions on all levels. From the Revolution to the Civil War, the Federal Government endowed higher and common schools with lands and made grants of surplus tax moneys. Following the Civil War land grants to new States were continued and the policy of direct money grants begun.

The Morrill-Nelson Act (1862 and 1890), appropriating funds for land-grant colleges and universities; the Hatch Act (1887), appropriating money for the establishment of agricultural experiment stations in connection with land-grant colleges; the Smith-Lever Act (1914) and the Capper-Ketcham Act (1928), providing for agricultural extension work through land-grant colleges; and the Smith-Hughes Act (1917) and subsequent similar acts for vocational education in agriculture, trades, and industries, home economics and distributive occupations all illustrate a fundamental interest of the Federal Government in the fostering of public education.

Thus the precedents were established and none of the dire predictions of those who have traditionally opposed Federal aid for education on the ground that it would result in Federal control of education have materialized. These arguments are as outworn as those directed against the public schools themselves. The experience of the 69 landgrant colleges sharply distinguishes Federal-State cooperation in educational matters from Federal domination of State educational policies. The last Congress extended the field of cooperation. Necessary defense training programs are being at present Federally financed, and given through State schools. Opportunities for this vocational training, however, are closed to thousands of American youth who live in some communities where there are no high schools, and to many other American youths because they have had insufficient elementary school training to enable them to participate in these programs. Today's defense training efforts have been successful largely because of State vocational schools, and in our elementary schools we must lay the foundation for the youth and adults who will be needed in the Nation's economic life of tomorrow. When, because of lack of educational opportunity, an individual's native capacity is undeveloped, not only is the individual grossly wronged by society, but the whole Nation is the loser.

There is no doubt that a reasonable amount of Federal financial assistance to equalize educational opportunities among the States would rapidly result in a vast improvement in the quality and quantity of education now offered to several million American children and youth.

Having mentioned precedents for the proposed legislation, I should like to point to some of the needs it would meet. Emphasis in the pending bill, S. 1313, is placed on equalizing educational opportunities for youth in rural areas. In many rural areas free public high-school advantages are wholly lacking. In several States, largely rural, a relatively large proportion of the youth of high-school age have no high school advantages. In 7 States less than 15 percent of the total publicschool enrollment is in high school as contrasted with 24 percent or more in 7 other States.

In the solution of the problem of unemployed youth, the secondary schools have a major contribution to make. The schools should be in a position to provide for the profitable investment of the time of youth until they can be absorbed into the labor market. Certainly up to the age of 21 years secondary schools, as increasingly as they have been called upon to do in the last decade or two, must provide for the education or, to put it another way, the developmental employment of the time of our youth. The problem is especially acute in rural areas. Three-fifths or more of the enrollees in C. C. C. camps and

N. Y. A. resident-work projects have come from rural areas or from towns with populations of fewer than 10,000. Even during the depths of the depression thousands of rural youth, without economic opportunity on their home farms or in their home communities, migrated to cities in search of employment. The surplus of unemployed rural youth between the ages of 16 and 21, in the 10 States in the Southern Appalachian and Ozark areas, has been estimated at more than 400,000. Finding their way to cities these rural youth are added to the ranks of unemployed city youth. And both groups, without tangible employment assets in the form of definite trade or occuaptional skills, are, therefore, at a disadvantage in competing for jobs with other young people and adults who have had opportunities for training in vocational schools.

In order to meet the pressing problem of occupational adjustment for rural youth it is not sufficient to provide facilities for training in vocational agriculture and home economics in some of the rural high schools. Valuable as such training may be in providing for the realistic vocational education of young men and women who will remain on the farm, it is not enough. For many rural youth facilities ought also to be provided that will enable these youth to secure vocational training of less-than-college grade for the occupations of industry and commerce to be found in urban areas. A constructive proposal as to how this need may be met has been advanced. It is the development of regional or State vocational schools, post-highschool technical institutes, and junior colleges in which the youth from rural areas and small towns may secure training in a variety of occupations.

A few States have established regional trade schools and junior colleges to serve youth from surrounding areas. The State of North Dakota may be cited as a specific example. North Dakota is primarily a sparsely settled agricultural State and hence finds it impossible to provide for trade and industrial education in small communities. Consequently, provision was made for centralizing trade teaching in one State school of science located at Wahpeton, N. Dak. This school, maintained at public expense, is free to residents of North Dakota. During a special winter term of 18 weeks many farm youth are in residence at the school securing training which will prepare them for various mechanical trades, the building trades, the electrical trades, and for business or domestic occupations.

I see no immediate prospect that the kind of educational opportunities I have described will or can be made available to the rural youth of many States without funds from the Federal Government to the States to finance such facilities. General equalization of publicschool facilities is necessary before vocational education can become available to many of the rural youth.

I note that the pending bill proposes funds to provide public-school facilities in areas affected by the influx of population due to defense activities. The facts concerning these needs have been made available through an investigation of the Office of Education upon the request of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy pursuant to Senate Resolution 324, dated October 9, 1940. I shall not go into the details of the report of that investigation. Commissioner Studebaker and Mr. Taft will appear before the committee and present these facts.