Dr. DAWSON. They probably would pass such a law, although it would not be necessary if they actually keep all schools open 8 months.

Mr. DONDERO. If they did not hold an 8-month school year, they could not participate under the bill?

Dr. DAWSON. The next year they could not.

Mr. FLANNERY. Although one State, for instance, X, does not need Federal aid, and another State, State B, needs a tremendous amount of Federal aid, still State X receives Federal aid?

Dr. DAWSON. Under the provisions of this bill Federal funds are allotted to the States on the basis of the number of persons 5 to 20 years of age residing in the State, which means, of course, that every State receives an allocation of Federal funds.

Mr. FLANNERY. One State might need more and receive less and another State might need less and receive more.

Dr. DAWSON. That is entirely possible.

Mr. DONDERO. In connection with that question, do you subscribe to the principle of allocating Federal aid on the basis of school population between the ages of 5 to 20?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes.

Mr. DONDERO. Let me propound this hypothetical question. Suppose that in a State, without naming any, the school population outside of parochial schools is 60 percent, and the parochial school population is 40 percent, would the children in that State receive more Federal aid than in a State where the parochial school population was 25 percent and the public school population 75 percent? Would that be an equal distribution of Federal funds?

Dr. DAWSON. It would be an equal distribution to the States. Of course, in the first place, I think the maximum private school enrollment in any State is about 20 percent, so that the ratio might be 20 and 80.

Mr. DONDERO. That is the reason I asked that question. Have you any suggestion to make to overcome that varying condition?

Dr. DAWSON. When you undertake to determine some basis for allocating Federal funds to the States, it is necessary that you find some objective or statistical basis on which the allocation can be made. That basis should be derived from the source which is by no manner of means under the control of or subject to the manipulation of the beneficiaries or recipients of the funds. You can name almost any kind of public-school data that you want to, and they all are derived from classroom teachers and superintendents of the State. About the only statistical data that could be used would be data collected by the regular agency of the Federal Government. The data of the United States Census Bureau are collected regularly and I think everybody takes it they are equally applicable to everybody so that the census figures for the number of children 5 to 20 years of age represents an objective method or objective data not subject to the control of any State or local government, but wholly under the supervision of the Federal Government and equally applicable to everybody. Now then, when we make the application to the State, we find that taking the number of children 5 to 20 years of age carries with it a larger element of equalization than any other measure related to any population distribution could give. As I shall hope to develop in the next few moments, that State which,

as Mr. Flannery suggests, may need money more than others, such States happen to be the States that have approximately twice as many children in ratio to the total population or their families are about twice as large as other States, so that when you apportion on the basis of population 5 to 20 years of age it presents, too, a relatively much larger increase in State funds for education in poor States than in the more wealthy States.

Mr. FLANNERY. With reference to the matter stated by Mr. Dondero, there was some discussion of tax-free schools and other schools. Does the application of this bill contemplate the tax support of public schools and the elimination of parochial schools?

Dr. DAWSON. The proponents of this bill take the position that there is nothing in this bill that specifically authorizes any of this money to go to any private or parochial school.

Mr. FLANNERY. Are you making a distinction when you say private parochial schools? Are they not generally public parochial schools?

Dr. DAWSON. I said private or parochial schools. Neither is there any specific prohibition to the State as to what kind of schools they will appropriate the money to, although the words used are, "public schools." What does that mean? It means that public schools are whatever the State law defines them to be. I do not think Congress could do anything to keep States from setting up any kind of public-school systems they might wish to, but it could do something about the money that is spent for them from the Federal Government.

Mr. FLANNERY. Do we have any authority here under which to supervise the application of this money?

Dr. DAWSON. No; and we do not undertake any supervision other than an audit to see that the money is spent for the purpose for which it is appropriated.

Mr. BARDEN. Did I understand you to say, following Mr. Dondero's question, that in a State where there are as many as 20 to 30 percent of the children in schools other than public schools, that would increase the allotment to the State of Federal funds? That is practically the same question he asked you.

Dr. DAWSON. The number of these children does not have any effect on what the State receives, because it is based on the population 5 to 20 years of age. If you put it on school attendance that is different.

Mr. BARDEN. I understand then, and it was the fifth subject that you mentioned, you said that the school year 1936 should be the gage and no State should spend less than they spent in 1936?

Dr. DAWSON. Of course, that does not determine the amount of money that the States would get under this bill.

Mr. BARDEN. Why would not it have this bearing? In 1936, in those States that Mr. Dondero referred to, the public-school system was carrying only 60 percent of the load? Then when you take 60 percent, you might say 60 percent goes to cost of education of those children; first spread it around 100 percent, then you would naturally have a tremendously less cost per capita than you would have if the State was carrying the entire load.

Dr. DAWSON. Of course, if you have people in private schools it tends to lessen the cost to the State government. The bill stipulates

that if a State spends less than for 1936 it does not qualify for Federal funds. But that would not have anything to do with the amount received.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Under this bill the per capita will be collected on all children from 5 to 20.

Dr. DAWSON. Yes.

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is, if there were 40 percent educated by private schools and the other 60 percent from public schools, the other 40 percent would be credited with the 60 percent in the public schools. Is that true?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes.

Mr. BARDEN. Would the cost be approximately the same throughout the Nation, the per-capita cost for education of children?

Dr. DAWSON. No. In the first place, the cost of living is a great deal more in those crowded industrial and urban centers than it is in the smaller cities and rural country. It ought to be the same if you could make accurately a measurement of the differential between the cost of living or the running of any kind of a concern in relatively small places as compared to the larger. I surmise it costs twice as much in New York City to live as it does in places of 2,500 population.

Mr. BARDEN. With particular reference to salaries of school teachers?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes.

Mr. BARDEN. To offset that, is it not tremendously less expensive for a State to transport those children to school, where they can walk around the block, in some instances, than in the rural communities where they haul them by truck.

Dr. DAWSON. That is one of the factors that does not lessen the differential any, even if you do that. Here is an example: In sparsely settled areas it costs more to get the children to school than it does in an agricultural area where there is dense population because you have the transportation factor we are talking about. These conditions of transportation in rural areas tend to make the cost of city and rural areas more nearly equal, but unless it is a very sparsely settled area it will probably not be equal because of the higher rent, higher food cost, and everything you have in the city as compared with the country. There is some difference. How much, I do not know. It varies from place to place. It is conceivable that schools in some places probably ought to cost twice as much as in others, and still educational opportunities would be equal because of the differences in the economic situation.

I do not know that it should be twice as much, but I do know that it would be more.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection you say that in some cities it might cost twice as much.

Dr. DAWSON. It might.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I had in mind when I questioned you about the State legislature a little while ago. Why not amend this so that in States with cities of a population of 500,000 they will have a right to receive this money and distribute it according to their legislative direction?

Dr. DAWSON. I think it would be a serious mistake for Congress to begin that with any local unit of government rather than the State

inasmuch as all lesser units of government are creatures of the State. Congress should go to the body that has the creating prerogative.

The CHAIRMAN. The W. P. A. and the P. W. A., while they recognized the State, they did recognize large municipalities.

Dr. DAWSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Could not the same principle be used in education as the W. P. A. and the P. W. A. used with large municipalities? They have their legislative bodies and have their own problems that the State legislatures do not have. As an illustration I notice in this morning's Sun, the Maryland Legislature this morning or last night voted against conveying children to school.

Dr. DAWSON. Of course, that is a matter which the committee has the privilege of considering in its executive session, but I think the answer I have given is correct, the only answer I would desire to give.

Mr. DONDERO. You think that would be injecting the principle of Federal control?

Dr. DAWSON. I certainly do.

Mr. FLANNERY. If it costs one State, for instance, for a unit of time, $5 to educate a child, because they have superior standards, and another State $1 to educate a child because they have inferior schools, let us say, each of those States nevertheless receive the same Federal assistance.

Dr. DAWSON. I would not be willing to say there ought to be any difference in the cost of education simply because they have different standards. They ought to have the same standard of efficiency. Mr. FLANNERY. Do they?

Dr. DAWSON. No; and the reason is because they do not have the money and because they have unequal ability to pay taxes.

Mr. FLANNERY. If we have the assurance with the grant, that they will offer it, that is one thing, but we are unable to have the assurance that they will. Is that correct?

Dr. DAWSON. I think we have reasonable assurance that the State can make very great improvements in their standards of education particularly if they receive these grants.

Mr. FLANNERY. We hope.

Dr. DAWSON. We feel quite certain that they will.

Mr. DONDERO. We know of your wide experience, Doctor, and would there be any State that you think might not be able to meet the requirement of the bill as it stands now?

Dr. DAWSON. I am quite sure there is not any State that could not meet the requirement of the bill. That is, the money provided in this bill is sufficient to have an 8 months' school term in every State, and that is required. They are all planning on what was spent in 1936, and the only new requirement is 8 months' school term, and we know this money is sufficient to provide an 8 months' school term in every State.

Mr. MASON. You brought out in answer to questions asked that some States were spending $120 per capita and other States $30. The amount provided in this bill would be in proportion to that amount they are now spending, that State B, for instance, might have to spend $50 more than State A, while one State might receive one-tenth or one-fifteenth as much.

Dr. DAWSON. Here is a chart which shows that.

Mr. DONDERO. Place it where we can all see it.

Dr. DAWSON. This represents the allotment the first year, $100,000,000. Here are all the 48 States, and this $100,000,000 will be apportioned to the 48 States on the basis of population 5 to 20 years of age. The school funds of Mississippi will be increased 21 percent. The school support in the State of California will be increased about 2.6 percent.

Mr. DONDERO. What will it be in Michigan?

Dr. DAWSON. The increase in the State of Michigan would be approximately 5 percent the first year.

Mr. FLANNERY. How about Pennsylvania?

Dr. DAWSON. Approximately 5 percent.

Mr. STEFAN. While you are on the roll call of the States, how about Nebraska?

Dr. DAWSON. I have a table that has the exact figures. The table is based on one-third of what the total allotments would be. The total I have is the whole allotment. I am reading the whole allotment or for the benefit of the reporter I will give him a copy of the table.

For the information of members of the committee I have prepared a table to show the number of persons 5 to 20 years old in each State and Territory and the amount of money that will go to each during each year until the appropriation reaches the maximum amount.

TABLE I.—Allotments to the States under S. 419