Sivut kuvina

Dr. MAXWELL. They are willing to support their schools to the limit, but when the wealth is taken away and segregated, that is a matter of concern.

Mr. BARDEN. You have a wealth here of approximately $12,000 per pupil. That wealth is still there.

Dr. MAXWELL. I am speaking of the equalization program.

Mr. BARDEN. I am not only just interested in the cost but I am interested in knowing why it is with such a high wealth here, you need this.

Dr. MAXWELL. I cannot answer that. I am sorry.

Mr. MASON. The answer to that is this: Wealth is centered in certain sections, while a large proportion of the children are in other sections where they cannot tax the wealth on the property tax. They can tax it on a severance tax.

Mr. BARDEN. Your schools are supported by each school district? Dr. MAXWELL. Yes. There is an appropriation provided by the State in addition to that.

Mr. BARDEN. You do not have a general level to meet? You have an equalization fund?

Dr. MAXWELL. The $5,000,000 and the $3,000,000.

Mr. MASON. A $20,000,000 equalization fund is what Pennsylvania would have. The State of Pennsylvania did pass an equalization fund of $5,000,000 and $3,000,000.

Dr. MAXWELL. That helps.

Mr. MASON. Then you admit that even though the State of Pennsylvania stands second in wealth it is unable to take care of the school situation.

Dr. MAXWELL. May I say that I am not sure that is the proper answer. May I also say that up to the present time, because of a certain situation in my State, constitutional measures will prevent or oppose that particular program and we could not have that.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that in view of the fact that the State of Pennsylvania, which is second in wealth, and is unable to take care of its citizens, that the Federal Government should take control of the educational situation?

Dr. MAXWELL. I do not think the Federal Government should take control of the educational system.

The CHAIRMAN. What are you going to do if the State is unable to cope with the situation? Who is going to take care of it?

Dr. MAXWELL. I think these provisions of which you are speaking, if they are carried into effect, will make equalization of educational opportunities more than just a platitude.

Mr. DONDERO. Would this bill aid equalization within the State of Pennsylvania, or broaden this bill to remedy the situation you have described?

Dr. MAXWELL. I cannot answer that question.

Mr. DONDERO. Would it not be a helpful remedy to take it from wealthy sections by tax and distribute it among the poorer sections; that is what we are trying to do here, take money from the wealthy States to help the poorer States?

Dr. MAXWELL. You might be surprised at the amount required to take care of the people of our State who are on relief or under social welfare at the present time.

Mr. KEOGH. You state that the enactment of this bill will prevent further taxation upon the already burdened property owners. Have you given any consideration to what other classes of people would be called upon to produce the amount of money necessary in financing this program?

Dr. MAXWELL. I am not saying that we are using all the types of taxes which might be levied for the purpose of bringing in greater


Mr. KEOGH. Would not a large proportion of this money be borne by property owners who are already, to use your own words, burdened with taxation?

Dr. MAXWELL. I will say it this way, that the State estimates that possibly 75 percent of all taxes comes from 20 percent which is vested land. That is 20 percent of the total wealth and it is bearing 75 percent of the burden of tax.

Mr. FLANNERY. Those are homes.


Mr. KEOGH. Frankly, my problem is the one that I have just expressed. If you could come to me with any suggestion as to how you are going to raise the $300,000,000 without taxing people who are quite already highly taxed, it would be a grand thing.

Dr. MAXWELL. I cannot answer that. You know what the other sources of wealth are which are not bearing proper share of the tax burden.

Mr. BARRY. What are those other sources? The problem to me is how to raise this money. No one questions the purposes of education. Can you suggest other sources?

Dr. MAXWELL. I would rather not.

Mr. BARRY. That is not very helpful.

Dr. MAXWELL. It would be presuming a little bit if I did.

Mr. GIVENS. We will have expert witnesses on the stand to answer that question.

Dr. MAXWELL. I can only make a general statement. Theirs will be specific.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that the people of Pennsylvania, although they want to equalize education for the whole State, are unable to do so because of the taxes. Can you tell or do you know, under this bill, after 5 years, if the State of Pennsylvania would obtain $23,554,000? Do you know or have you any idea how much the State of Pennsylvania would pay in order to accumulate this $300,000,000, help accumulate it? In other words, what I am trying to get at is this: Do you know that the people of Pennsylvania would pay more into the Federal Government by reason of this collection than they will receive in itself?

Dr. MAXWELL. I cannot answer definitely your question. I am under the impression that about one-tenth of the contributions which are made to the Federal Government come from Pennsylvania. I may be wrong about that, but I think it is about that.

Mr. MASON. It is close to it.

Mr. KEOGH. Assume that it is right. You then have the State coming to us asking for additional help when it will have to pay $30,000,000 under the program, out of which it will only receive $23,000,000, so that it will be $7,000,000 behind the point it is at now.

Dr. DAWSON. Pennsylvania pays 7.4 percent of the Federal taxes. That is, 7.4 percent are collected in Pennsylvania. That does not mean the people there pay it. In other words, they contribute 7.85 percent of the revenue toward the Federal Government. Pennsylvania will be a little bit on the receiving end of the line.

Mr. KEOGH. Yet it is one of the wealthiest States of the Union. Dr. DAWSON. But they also have a large number of children. Mr. BARRY. Which State is it coming from? The only other State left is New York.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a list of the amounts received by the States and what they expect to pay under this bill?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. I have a table showing the percentages. The CHAIRMAN. Will you put that in the record? The members of the committee and Members of Congress would like to know. Dr. DAWSON. I have put that into the record already.

Mr. BARDEN. I wonder if in the light of existing facts in the State of Pennsylvania where the weak districts grow weaker and the strong districts grow stronger, if you would not be more inclined to have an equalization fund than you would be to have a fund that would be equally distributed to every State in the Union?

Dr. MAXWELL. We would ask for no more than this amount which is allocated for each child to be so distributed as the State may designate. They are doing a fine job at the present time and, as I understand it, distributing special aid to the districts which are impoverished, and we believe that we are able to do it very adequately. Mr. BARDEN. What I had in mind is this: Would you expect the State legislature to allocate more funds to poverty-stricken districts than you would to a district that was amply able to take care of its schools? Would you advocate that same principle with respect to the States?

Dr. MAXWELL. I think that is the way it would be handled in the States. I could not tell them what they must do with their funds. Mr. BARDEN. Could it be handled under this bill?

Dr. MAXWELL. I think so.

Mr. BARDEN. Could it be handled on the basis of the number of pupils rather than the need basis?

Dr. MAXWELL. Eventually that would make an equalization program. That is correct. As I understand, this is to provide additional educational opportunities. There is to be no reduction in the amount of revenue from the State itself in order to qualify under the provisions of this bill. This is to be over and above. This is to be an additional sum to establish better forms of education. Pennsylvania had what we speak of as the ability and effort plan; that is, determine the true valuation not only on the assessed valuation but indicating what proportion of the assessed valuation is the true valuation. Then, on that particular true valuation is based the amount of revenue that the State allocates to the individual district. They would not need to change it at all. May I explain further? When we have less than $50,000 to educate the children, then we have what we call the preferred class of 75 percent, and they receive 75 percent of the amount of the minimum salary, the teachers. If the amount is between $50,000 and $100,000, it is 60 percent; and if it is between $100,000 and $300,000, they be

long to the regular classification, fourth class, 50 percent; third class takes 35 percent. That is the basis on which the money is allocated to the State districts.

Mr. COLE. By what authority do you speak for 62,000 people? Dr. MAXWELL. I am president of the organization.

Mr. COLE. Did you take up this matter with the teachers in any


Dr. MAXWELL. This matter is advertised through our organ, the Pennsylvania School Journal, and through the various types of materials which are sent out for the purpose of getting a census of information from the groups. It comes into the central office in Harrisburg.

Mr. COLE. Have you had an expression of opinion of the teachers in the State?

Dr. MAXWELL. If you speak of individuals questioned; no. It is all by local canvass of school districts, 285 altogether in the State. Mr. COLE. Have every one of those districts reported to you that they are in favor of the bill?

Dr. MAXWELL. They have reported to the central office. They do not report to me. The material is sent out personally to the entire organization. There may be some of us that object to it. The consensus from the whole group is favorable to it. There may be cases here and there.

Mr. STEFAN. That is the Pennsylvania State Teachers Association?

Dr. MAXWELL. Yes; the Pennsylvania State Education Association, P. S. E. A.

Mr. FLANNERY. Have they had this particular bill before them? Dr. MAXWELL. I think this bill has been before them on many occasions since presentation of it.

Mr. FLANNERY. How long ago? This copy we are working on now, has that been changed?

Mr. FLETCHER. This is the copy that was revised and introduced, making no changes in the former bill of any consequence. It is purely a matter of phraseology in a place or two.

Mr. FLANNERY. The bill we have now before us was not before any of those bodies as it is now written.

Mr. FLETCHER. The bill with the provisions under discussion here has been before all the education groups, H. R. 5962.

Mr. FLANNERY. This bill that we have before us now?

Mr. FLETCHER. H. R. 5962, no; that bill was introduced in the House Monday and made available on Tuesday, but there are no major changes in the bill. It is purely a little change here and there in phraseology.

Mr. FLANNERY. The other bill was H. R. 2288?

Mr. FLETCHER. All those provisions are in this bill.

Dr. MAXWELL. Perhaps Mr. Given or Dr. Dawson could answer

the question.

Mr. COLE. You must know what your central office has.

Dr. MAXWELL. I am president of the organization.

Mr. COLE. Did your central office receive any expression of disapproval?


Mr. GIVENS. They have passed finally a resolution at their last meeting approving the program of this bill. That is on file here in the Senate hearing.

Mr. COLE. When was that district meeting held?

Mr. GIVENS. Since Christmas.

Dr. MAXWELL. December 28 and 29.

Mr. COLE. That was before this bill was introduced.

Dr. MAXWELL. The bill was in process of formation.

Mr. GIVENS. They are the identical same words except the minor changes.

The CHAIRMAN. Following up Mr. Cole's question, these 62,000 approve this bill?


The CHAIRMAN. The 62,000 members would benefit by this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. For that reason, human nature being what it is, they are in sympathy with it.

Dr. MAXWELL. Naturally so. No one can be altruistic until he is first selfish. You must have something to give first. It is not particularly meant for teachers' salaries. It is meant for the improvement of childhood, and the teachers will be pleased to have better facilities to work with.

Mr. FLANNERY. The bill as originally written did not arbitrarily exclude parochial schools, but left that up to the State.

Mr. FLETCHER. It still does the same thing.


Mr. FLANNERY. As now written, it arbitrarily excludes parochial schools.

Mr. FLETCHER. It does not exclude parochial schools, but leaves that matter to the State.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill does specify public schools, unless you place the parochial schools in the class of being public schools.

Mr. MASON. It leaves it entirely in the hands of the legislature to determine what public schools in a State may be, and some States have partially acknowledged that parochial schools are public schools. You observe it does not limit them at all. It leaves it entirely up to the State.

Dr. MAXWELL. I thank you for your courtesy, gentlemen.


Mr. GIVENS. The next speaker represents the Ohio State Association, Mr. B. F. Stanton, who is superintendent of schools at Alliance, Ohio.

Mr. STANTON. I am rather glad to follow the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because, as I understand, the two States are not particularly different. Perhaps their situation is more extreme in some respects than ours. I would like to touch on this bill in two respects, if I may.

In the first place, may I precede what I am going to say by calling attention to the fact that I represent the teachers of the State of Ohio, the State association with approximately 37,000 members, and

« EdellinenJatka »