Mr. FLANNERY. When you say the 12 poorest States, do you mean those who have spent least on education? Mr. DAWSON. Ño; I mean those that are ranked on the basis of wealth, income, retail sales. As a matter of fact, there are three or four different measures, each having its own different measure of spending power and its taxpaying ability. That is the order in which I rank those States. Mr. DONDERO. Was Virginia in the list of the 12 poorest? Mr. FLETCHER. In respect to the increase in amounts available under this bill, referred to by Dr. Dawson, those amounts do not refer to the amounts available in the first year after this bill is passed, but after the 5-year period. Is that right? Dr. DAWSON. One-third of the percentages shown in the table would be applicable for the first year. The chart for the first and fifth years would be in the same proportion in comparing the States. Mr. DEROUEN. But the figures you have read were for 5 years, one-third? Dr. DAWSON. Yes. Mr. DONDERO. We are proud of our school system in Michigan. Dr. DAWSON. You should be. You raised the question as to whether the States would not receive money on the basis of children who are attending public schools? The answer, of course, is that they do because it goes on the basis of 5 to 20. Suppose you want to put this on the basis of the number of children in schools. What would be the immediate result? In those States that rank the lowest (the lowest 12, we will say, on the basis of the ability to raise revenue from taxation) we find the lowest percentage of children enrolled and attending schools. There are only 50 to 60 percent of all of the children of elementary and secondary school ages that are in school in those poorest States. Take Mississippi and South Carolina, for instance, and Georgia. They are not in school there. Mr. DEROUEN. Why? Dr. DAWSON. One reason is they have not had any to go to, that are worth going to. If you began to pay this money out simply on the basis of those in school, it is difficult to make the initial start in establishing educational advantages for those children. The big need in those States is money to have school systems and there can be no schools until there is money. You cannot get the children to school until you have the schools. That is the vicious circle. Then, too, it is undesirable to apportion this money on the basis of average daily attendance, because it would be necessary to have a Federal auditor to go into every school room in America to audit the ques tion of attendance and nobody wants that. Apportionment on aver age daily attendance will result in decreasing the amount that would otherwise go to places that need it most to creating school advantages for children that do not now have them. Mr. REES. Did you not make a statement to the effect that the reason why 85 percent of the children not in school in your State are not in school is because they do not have school facilities? Is it not because they do not have compulsory measures to require them to go to school? Dr. DAWSON. I wish you could see the picture of the total of the schoolhouses that Mr. Fletcher has in his office. That would be a final answer to that question. Mr. REES. A final answer. Dr. DAWSON. Yes. If you saw the picture of those schools, you probably would not want to compel the children to attend any such places. They all do have compulsory education laws. They are not equally well enforced, and some of them do not run the age limit up far enough to reach the secondary level. If we had a compulsory education law we could not compel them to go to a school that is not there. The president of the Michigan Education Association presented evidence here 2 or 3 weeks ago to show that the chances are even that the boy or girl on the farms of the great State of Michigan will never darken the doors of the high school, and why? There is not any for him or her to go to. There is no need to have a compulsory law if there is no school to go to. Mr. REES. Is that in Michigan? Dr. DAWSON. The same testimony was given by the president of the Pennsylvania association. This matter of want of opportunity is not confined to the poor States, although it is the worst there. Mr. FITZGERALD. If the Federal Government did provide schools, and you did not have laws that would compel children to go to school, do you think that some of these States will have to have better laws so that children of 12 and 13 years of age will be able to go to school? Dr. DAWSON. Unquestionably; and all of the others. Mr. FITZGERALD. There is no use of having schoolhouses if you do not have laws to put children into them. Dr. DAWSON. Possibly that would help. Mr. MASON. There is no use of having a compulsory law forcing the children to go to school when there are no schools to go to. The point is, which one of these should come first, and everyone interested in education claims that the school must be there before the law compels the child to go. That is the first thing, and that is the thing that is taken into account in this plan. Dr. DAWSON. Mr. Fitzgerald, before these hearings are closed there will be 38 State school superintendents who will make every pledge to this committee that compulsory school laws will be enforced, and they will tell you that they would be if they had school facilities for children to go to, and there is no doubt if they had resources with which to establish schools, the thing you are talking about would be true. You are exactly right. Mr. DONDERO. On your statement regarding the Michigan schools, I am trying to reconcile what you said last with the statement you made first, that we have just reason to be proud of the public education system in Michigan. Dr. DAWSON. Any statement of that character is always relative, since we can rarely speak in terms of the absolute. Mr. BARRY. Have you made a study of the relative tax rates? In other words, are some States assuming responsibility insofar as educating their children is concerned and other States falling down on the job? Dr. DAWSON. I have the answer to that question in my remarks a little further on, but I am glad you brought that out. Further evi dence will be presented to the committee than I shall take the time to present now. Testimony from practical experts of the country who have studied the question of taxation and inequalities in taxpaying ability of the States will be presented later. Generally, the poorer States have done the best job of arranging their tax systems. Their tax systems are more diversified, apply to more sources, and they have a higher rate of taxation. I reiterate that the States that have done that are among the 12 poorest States in the Union. It is not a question of putting the fiscal houses in order in the State governments. It happens that the standards of taxation for some of the rich States are high, especially the State of New York. After the tax systems are modernized the differences in the tax resources available for public schools are correspondingly as great as the differences in wealth and in income and in purchasing power and other measures of that character. The State of North Carolina has a highly diversified system of State taxation. North Carolina has equalized educational opportunity more so than most other States, but on a low level. The State of Mississippi, which every economist that has studied the question recognizes as being at the very bottom of the 48 States, has a highly diversified tax system. They have sources of taxation that most of the States of the Union have never even thought of. They have higher rates of taxation and yet when we get through they have only $24 a year per child to educate their children as compared to $133 in the richest State. So, it is not a question of putting the fiscal house in order. It is a question of inherent ability, economic ability to pay taxes. Mr. BARDEN. To what have you reference when you say it is a low level? Dr. DAWSON. The salaries of the teachers are too low and 8-month school terms only 8 months when they really ought to have 9; extension of high-school advantages to all the children of high-school age, are some of the examples of standards that should be higher. Mr. FLETCHER. Some of the salaries are too low, from three hundred to four hundred dollars per year. Dr. DAWSON. Even in North Carolina. Mr. LARRABEE. Do you not think Indiana is getting results along that line? Dr. DAWSON. I will agree that Indiana has done an excellent job in the last few years. Their system of State school financing is modern and they snapped out of the depression quicker than other States. The CHAIRMAN. Speaking about high-school education which would qualify boys in the neighborhood of 20 years of age, it seems to me in late years that a boy or girl without specific education is unable to get anywhere by way of employment, and that brings up the question of why this bill stops at 20 years of age. What do you think of the American Youth Act, perhaps advancing the child so that he may go to a college and the Federal Government helps him out in that? We have a bill here on that. Dr. Dawson. I would like to see a maximum opportunity offered to American youth, of course. But I will say this, that the number of children 5 to 20 years old is merely an objective method of de termining how much money goes to the States. The bill specifically provides that the State may provide educational opportunities for people under 5 if they want to or over 20 if they want to. In other words, it does not say that States have to be confined to the ages of 5 and 20 in setting up school facilities. It is merely an objective method to find out how much money goes to the States. We would not have any difference of opinion in arguing about the desirability of creating better opportunities for all our young people, whether they are 20 years of age or not. The particular bill you mention does not happen to be one that my group sponsors, and I do not care to commit myself on its merits one way or the other. Mr. STEFAN. Under this bill it is your idea to keep these young people in school until they are 20 years of age? Dr. DAWSON. No. Mr. STEFAN. What is the age limit in the bill? Dr. Dawson. It would be entirely improper for this bill to say or not to say what the age limit of this educational system should be. For the most part it is accepted as being a minimum of 6 to 18, because that is from the first grade to the twelfth grade, but 5 to 20 is not a recommendation of what the States do. They could take people over 20 if they wanted to. Mr. STEFAN. I will ask a question along the lines you have brought up. You would derive a total of $100,000,000 for the first year and $300,000,000 the fifth year. On what do you base that total? For instance, take my State of Nebraska. My State would have an increase of 17.9 percent at the end of the 5 years. Dr. DAWSON. Yes. Mr. STEFAN. In your opinion, will that be enough money at the end of the 5 years to take care of all the education in my State of Nebraska as a result of that research? You say you have gone into every State of the Union and have reports of 85 percent return favoring this bill. Will that take care of the educational need of Nebraska? Dr. DAWSON. I cannot make a categorical answer. Mr. SREFAN. Do I understand you aright? Dr. DAWSON. The bill was originally written by the legislative counsel of the United States Senate. Mr. STEFAN. I am most anxious for the continuation of the three R's education for all boys and girls of our land. Dr. DAWSON. Yes. Mr. STEFAN. What has your organization done in the last few years to help those already educated? I am hoping that you want to raise the salaries of some of the poor school teachers in the rural districts. Have you ever given those young men and young women an opportunity who are now qualified by an education in collegegiven them some opportunity to apply that education? You find them here in Washington, some of them, with a wonderful education and nothing to offer them to apply that education. Dr. DAWSON. I do not think the National Education Association would be in a position to solve many of the economic factors that have been responsible since 1930 for that conditions. Mr. STEFAN. Why not stop along the line here? Mr. STEFAN. Do you think that an age limit of 20 years is too old? Mr. MASON. I think there is a difference of opinion here. This 20-year age limit has nothing to do with the school-age limit. Dr. DAWSON. Not at all. Mr. MASON. This is just a method of appropriating money. The school age limit in my State may be 16, and your State 15, and some of the States 14. Mr. STEFAN. Why stop at $100,000,000? Why not extend it to $500,000,000? Mr. MASON. They are just starting at $100,000,000, and that is a very good place to start. Dr. DAWSON. Congress should set the limit. Mr. COLE. What is the highest compulsory age in any State? Dr. DAWSON. I think it is 18. Mr. COLE. What is the average highest? Dr. DAWSON. The average for the Nation-I do not know of any that is less than 14. Mr. COLE. What is the average lowest? Dr. DAWSON. It is 14 to 18. Mr. COLE. The average lowest compulsory school age? Dr. DAWSON. Fourteen years is the lowest. There is nobody below 14. Mr. COLE. The minimum school age in many States is 5 or 6 or 7 years. Dr. DAWSON. You mean how low? It is 5 years. Mr. COLE. If the highest compulsory school age is 18, why do you fix 20 as one of the factors of determining the appropriation? Dr. DAWSON. The amount of money going to each State would be almost exactly the same if you apportion it on the basis of 5 to 18 as if you apportion it 5 to 20. It would just increase the per-capita amount and the total amount going to each State would be the same. Mr. COLE. States would be receiving money for children who are not compelled under their State laws to be in school. Dr. DAWSON. Yes; but Mississippi and Arkansas and New York and Nebraska and all the rest of them would get exactly the same total sum of money in dollars from 5 to 18 as from 5 to 20 years. Mr. COLE. How about 5 to 25? Would that be more? Dr. DAWSON. True to a little less degree, because after you begin to pass 20 you begin to have the migration of the population from rural sections which then begin to lose out. Mr. COLE. And mortality. Dr. DAWSON. They move off. Mobility of the population becomes effective. Mr. BARRY. How many States of the Union, according to your statement, have adequate schooling facilities now and really do not need any Federal assistance? Dr. DAWSON. I do not know that I can answer that question specifically, Mr. Barry. I would say that there are certainly more than a dozen States that have educational opportunities away above the average for the Nation, but in each one of these States it is true that there are great inequalities of educational opportunity. For example, in the State of California there are great inequalities, and we have witnesses from that State that will show the extent 1 |