FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION IN THE PAST

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 to 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-Ketchum Act (1928), providing for agricultural extension work through land-grant colleges; and the SmithHughes Act (1917) and subsequent similar acts for vocational education in agriculture, trades, and industries, and home economics, all illustrate a fundamental interest of the Federal Government in the fostering of public education.

Since the early land grants for the support of education, the Federal Government has more and more gone to the policy of appropriating money for special types of education as is illustrated by the Morrill-Nelson Act and the Smith-Hughes Act and succeeding acts for the support of vocational education. These acts have had the effect of stimulating the States to undertake new kinds of educational work. Most of them have been made on condition that States and localities match dollar for dollar the Federal appropriations. In every instance, State and local governments have done much more than match Federal appropriations. State and local expenditures for these purposes have constantly increased, thus showing that Federal appropriations rather than stifling local initiative have proved a great stimulation to local and State self-help. What the States need today, however, is not stimulation to further effort, but funds to pay for general educational opportunities needed by people of all the States. As will be presently shown, the Federal Government should assume its fair share of the cost of education in all the States and to guarantee sufficient funds to support the kinds of education it has so effectively stimulated.

Federal allotments to the States for educational purposes are shown in table III herewith attached:

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 Govern

ment.

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