In many of those districts the rate of taxation is far beyond the statutory limit. The statutory limit in Kansas is 6 mills in the country and the rural schools, with a possibility of 72 mills by a threefourths vote. In the city schools, high schools, the maximum is 14 mills with a possible 1712 mills by a three-fourths vote, but there is one exception, and that is, that if those levies do not produce sufficient funds, taxes may be levied on the basis of the average daily attendance in the schools, and by using that method some of the schools that are now completely out of funds have levied as high as 32, 46, and even 54 mills, and still, because of the low valuation, they do not have sufficient funds with which to maintain those schools. We have 1,266 districts with valuations less than $100,000. They go down as low in valuation as $30,000. At 6 mills that would mean that only $180 could be secured to maintain the schools in that district. I have gone from place to place in Kansas during the past several years and have talked of State aid for schools. I have worked different studies out and have talked of equalization of educational opportunity, and the present legislature has just enacted a law whereby they will levy a 2-percent sales tax in Kansas and allocate three-fourths of that, or $2,500,000, for State aid for our schools. That would guarantee a minimum program of $675 for each teaching unit on the basis of the 3 mills levy. At present we do not have anything like equalization of educational opportunity, as I have told you. With this 2-percent sales tax, we will have enough in the State school fund to give a gross of $27 per child in average daily attendance in the graded schools of the cities, $675 in the one-room schools; that is, the difference between the $675 and what a 3 mills local levy will produce. I represent the Kansas State Teachers' Association, with 18,000 members; the District Teachers' Association, with 35,000 members; and the school board organization of 26,000 members; the university women, with a membership of 12,000; and also the women's clubs throughout the State; all have gone on record as favoring the program of State aid or Federal aid for all public schools. We have endorsed this bill, and we believe it will be a great aid to the schools in Kansas as well as in other States. It will be distributed on the basis of population 5 to 20 years of age, with the privilege of allocating it to the several school districts in the same way we allocate our State fund to the several school districts, and we believe that we have in our section of the country the best method we can devise for distributing State aid to schools. We think that the Federal aid that is given to our State should be distributed on the same plan and in the same way and will be equitable and fair throughout the State. I can talk all afternoon on the schools of Kansas and the school conditions, but I do not believe you care to have an oration on the existing conditions and needs in the State. I have in these few moments just given you some general statements. I much prefer that you ask me definite questions if you have any in mind with respect to this bill and its application to our State and anything else so far as schools are concerned. I will be glad to answer any questions for you. I thank you kindly. Mr. FLANNERY. Would it appear to you that the State administration of education is breaking down? Mr. MARKHAM. The State administration of education breaking down? Not in our State. Mr. FLANNERY. How then have these conditions that you describe persisted? Maybe they are only temporary. Mr. MARKHAM. We have had, since the beginning of the State, with the exception of a 19-year period, no State aid for schools. It is all on a local district property-tax basis. We are now getting into State support of schools and have gone into that in the last 2 weeks. Mr. FLANNERY. With State aid would Federal aid be necessary? Mr. MARKHAM. Our State aid guarantees a minimum of $675, including all expenses for the school. Mr. FLANNERY. Then with State aid would Federal aid be necessary? Mr. MARKHAM. Federal aid is necessary to any equitable and fair program. Mr. FLANNERY. Do you understand State administration of education has broken down? You have heard these other statements and now we are asking as to conditions in Kansas. Mr. MARKHAM. Just what do you mean by breaking down-in what way? Mr. FLANNERY. They are unable to handle the problem efficiently and properly. Mr. MARKHAM. We grant that we are unable financially to handle it. Mr. FLANNERY. True. I do not mean to impugn the integrity or the efficiency insofar as you are financially able, but apparently the States are not financially able. Is that correct? Mr. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. FLANNERY. Are you in favor of Federal restriction? Mr. MARKHAM. I am in favor of this bill as it is written. I believe that I am not favorable to definite Federal regulations. I believe that we should have the privilege of allocating even the same as we allocate our own funds because they will become our funds once they are granted. Mr. FLANNERY. You believe, if we follow that to a logical conclusion, in the State running it and the Federal Government paying for it. Mr. MARKHAM. You are putting regulations into this bill sufficiently. Mr. FLANNERY. I am asking you as a general proposition. Mr. MARKHAM. I would not agree with that 100 percent; no. Mr. MASON. Your statement is you have some 8,000 school districts and about 7,000 of them are single school, one-room school districts? Mr. MARKHAM. Correct. Mr. MASON. What is the attendance at the 7,000 one-room school districts? Does it get down to five or six or seven pupils? Mr. MARKHAM. Yes; the average daily attendance in the 7,225 is 11.4, I think, between 11 and 12. Mr. MASON. Then would you not say that one of the improvements that could be made in the Kansas schools would be the consolidation of them so that four or five of these one-room schools could 3410-37- -10 get together and in that way you would operate more efficient schools as well as schools that could be operated for less expense? Mr. MARKHAM. That is one of the major factors in our program. This State aid is given on the average daily attendance each week in the local schools with only proportional aid below that. Mr. DONDERO. That you have so many one-room schools in Kansas is due to the fact that it is mostly an agricultural State? Mr. MARKHAM. Correct. Mr. DONDERO. Would you have to change your laws in Kansas to meet the requirement of this bill of 160 days, or does your law now provide for that? Mr. MARKHAM. We require 160 now in the rural districts and 9 months in the others. Mr. DONDERO. The law of Kansas would meet the bill as it is now written? Mr. MARKHAM. Yes, as changed. Mr. MASON. I have suggested this consolidation idea because Illinois, the State that I represent, is as backward as Kansas in the consolidation program, and we have just been considering doing those things. We have had 10,000 1-room schools in Illinois. Mr. FLETCHER. The previous speaker suggested the idea of amending the bill so that there would be Federal control to the extent of allocating the funds and setting up municipal divisions of 100,000 or more. Will you, with your experience as a school executive, give your chief reason in objecting to that point of view? Mr. MARKHAM. We must come to some definite plan of handling this program, and it is so nearly in conformance to what we have in our own State that we agree with the program and it seems quite satisfactory there, so I suggest no additional Federal control. Mr. FLETCHER. If we were to change the bill so that the distributing of this fund would be left to Topeka, Wichita, and Kansas City, Kans., and other local units, thus taking it out of your hands as State administrator, would not that be a very bad thing and mean chaos so far as administration of the school fund is concerned? Mr. MARKHAM. I could not bring myself to think that it would be a very acceptable program in our State. I think that the same type of distribution should apply to all units of the State. Mr. FLETCHER. That is in the interest of efficiency? Mr. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. FLETCHER. And it eliminates politics to do it that way. The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, take the State of Maryland with 490,000 children between 5 and 20 years, half of the population and half of those children reside in the city of Baltimore. The city of Baltimore has a distinct school system and a superintendent other than the State superintendent. Do you not think it is fair enough if the Federal Government contributed something to the State of Maryland, to give the city of Baltimore half of whatever proportion it has to the whole number, its share, whatever it is, and let the mayor and city council who know the local conditions in the city of Baltimore better than the State superintendents of schools, handle it? Mr. MARKHAM. Will not this bill do that very thing? The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. MARKHAM. They will get their proportionate share on the basis of their population and the money is theirs and they will allocate it to their several schools in their own way. The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. MARKHAM. It is that way in Kansas. The CHAIRMAN. What objection would you have to permitting municipalities of four or five hundred thousand people, with a mayor and city council, a legislative body of their own, to deal with what proportion under this bill goes direct to the governmental body of that subdivision? Mr. MARKHAM. Do you mean allocated from Washington to the several municipalities rather than to the States? The CHAIRMAN. Cities of 500,000 or over? Mr. MARKHAM. We would not be affected either way because we have no such cities. The CHAIRMAN. What would be your views or reaction to an amendment that would divide it and give to the respective municipal authorities, where they have separate school superintendents and school systems from the State, their share and let them distribute it as they see fit in their respective sections of the city? Mr. MARKHAM. I must go back to my original statement that I can see no difference, coming from Topeka to Kansas City and Wichita, or coming from Washington to Kansas City. The proportion would be the same and once it is in their hands it is their money and they distribute it to their respective schools. I do not get the idea of sending it to the several municipalities. The CHAIRMAN. The State legislature would have absolute control of this money once it is out of Washington. The bill says that they would have control of it. Mr. MARKHAM. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. I believe it would be better to give to those large independent municipalities the right to regulate the funds themselves. Mr. MARKHAM. Most certainly I am not going to oppose the idea, but I go back to the idea that it is better as it is now distributed, and I think the ultimate result would be the same anyway. Mr. FLANNERY. What is the arrangement for the distribution in Kansas at the present time of such a fund? Mr. MARKHAM. The interest on our permanent school fund is determined by the constitution, and that is $453,000, and that is on the basis of the census of 5 to 21, and the State aid is distributed on the basis of need. The levy in each and every district of at least 3 mills must be made. What they lack in reaching the minimum will have to come from the State treasury. Mr. FLANNERY. You say on the basis of need. Who determines the need? Mr. MARKHAM. The legislature has determined the program. Mr. FLANNERY. Is the decision or discretion lodged with the Board of Education? Mr. MARKHAM. No. The law says you have to levy 3 mills. If you have $100,000 you would raise $300 and that gives you $375, and if you have $225, you can raise the minimum of $675. Mr. FLANNERY. Then you say that the State-aid fund is distributed according to need. Is that correct? Mr. MARKHAM. That is what we term it, yes; on the basis of need. Mr. FLANNERY. That was your phraseology, on the basis of need. Mr. MARKHAM. Yes. Mr. FLANNERY. In whom does discretion lie as to which district is in need and which district is not? Mr. MARKHAM. All districts where a 3-mill levy does not produce $675 are declared to be in need and they are given the difference between that amount and $675. Mr. FLANNERY. Per pupil? Mr. MARKHAM. No; per school unit. Mr. KEOGH. Did I understand you correctly that the present local assessment is 6 mills? Mr. MARKHAM. The statutory limit in the rural one-room districts is 6 mills, with the provision that a 72-mill levy may be made by three-fourths vote of the people in that district. We have another provision which provides for a levy on a per pupil average daily attendance basis, and when there are a large number of pupils and a small valuation, if it goes to $30 per pupil, if that is produced, no matter how much that produces, the levy may be made, and in some instances it does run as high as 56 or 57 mills because of the low valuation. Mr. KEOGH. Does the law providing for State aid require a minimum of 3 mills local assessment? Mr. MARKHAM. Three mills before it can be appropriated by the State. Mr. KEOGH. Is it your opinion that these local school districts, in order to participate in State aid, will reduce the present 6-mill levy to 3 mills? In other words, do you think from your experience that the tendency in those local districts will be to levy to the minimum or maintain their present rate? Mr. MARKHAM. In some instances they will, but in the majority of cases they will levy in the interest of the communities or districts. Mr. FITZGERALD. You feel that Kansas has gone as far as it possibly can in the way of taxation for schools? Mr. MARKHAM. Insofar as the property tax is concerned, it certainly has gone further than it should go. I thank you, gentlemen. STATEMENT OF R. FLOYD CROMWELL, PRINCIPAL OF THE CAMBRIDGE HIGH SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, MD. Mr. GIVENS. The next witness is Mr. R. Floyd Cromwell, principal of the Cambridge High School, Cambridge, Md. Mr. CROMWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have here quite a few friends of education in Maryland whom I would like to introduce to the committee, and I will ask them to arise as I call their names: Dr. Livingood, Mr. J. Stenger, Mrs. Ross Coppage, Mrs. D. Potlich, Mr. Eugene Pruett, Mr. Truman Kline, Mr. O. D. Jobe, Mr. R. A. Hall, Mr. Conover Crouse, Mr. John Seidel, Mr. John Riser, Mr. Eugene Schott, Mr. D. K. Lamar, Mr. M. N. Douglas, Mr. William Devilbiss, Dr. Kefauver, Mr. Albert Miller, Mrs. McBride, Miss Charlotte Coppage, Mr. Don Kaylor. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. |