part of these investigations. Dr. Newcomer computed what reasonable tax sources at reasonable rates would yield to each of the States. This gives us a basis for exact comparison with respect to ability. In Alabama, for example, these taxes would raise $46,000,000. They do not include gas tax and that kind of thing. A $60 educational program in Alabama would cost $39,000,000, leaving only $7,000,000, plus the yield of gas tax, to run all other functions of State and local governments; obviously an impossibility. Alabama now raises $48,000,000 in taxes and spends $17,000,000 instead of the $39,000,000 on its elementary and secondary schools. Here are the comparable figures for Louisiana. Newcomer's tax basis yields $46,000,000. A $60 educational program would cost $29,000,000. Louisiana now spends $16,000,000 on its elementary and secondary schools. In Mississippi, Newcomer's tax base would yield $32,000,000. If all of this were used for education, it would still fall $4,000,000 short of the amount required to operate a $60 program, if you did not put a cent into anything else; if they made all the other Government parochial, you might say. Newcomer's tax base would yield $86,000,000 for North Carolina. The $60 program would cost $56,000,000. North Carolina now spends $23,000,000 for education. To contrast this with the abler States, Newcomer's tax base would yield for Pennsylvania $559,000,000. The $60 program would cost $135,000,000, and it now spends $147,000,000. In New York, the Newcomer tax base yields $441,000,000. The $60 program would cost $163,000,000. The State of New York now spends $286,000,000. New York, Ohio, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania now make less than average effort. North Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama now make more than average effort. Louisiana now spends $16,000,000, as compared to the $29,000,000 necessary for a $60 program and is making average effort. If its efforts were increased to equal that of the State of greatest effort it would be still $5,000,000 short of having sufficient funds to operate a $60 program-that is, on the basis of its own set-up. The CHAIRMAN. How about Maryland? Mr. MORT. Do you want me to stop and give you that? The CHAIRMAN. It is not on the map, is it? Mr. MORT. Well, I did not put it on that map. It is in the book. Every State is in the book. If you want me to go on, I shall be glad to provide those figures, if you want to wait here. Use of Federal agencies necessarily is the conclusion. Present educational conditions represent a menace to the country at large. It is a condition that was only aggravated by the depression. It is not a product of it. It was recognized by many early in the 20's as a matter of grave concern. The people utilizing the State governments during the last decade have made greatest efforts in our history to correct it. There is no indication that this tremendously significant movement can or will come to a standstill short of adequately reorganizing its schools, insofar as it can be done with resources available to State agencies, but the evidences are clear that in spite of the tremendous good that this movement has done and will continue to do, it is too localized economically to meet national needs. We are forced as a people to turn to our Government at Washington, that other structure of government which rests as directly on the people as our State governments, and use it as a funding agency, so that by the threefold pattern of local, State, and national support, we may provide an adequate foundation program of education to meet our needs of the people. And I bring out the point that in the Union of South Africa they have a program of education the minimum of which is a little better than the $60 program, and most of that money comes from the National Government, and the people of South Africa have their money collected by the National Government and sent back to the States or Provinces on terms of due bills, and the complete control of it is in the hands of the Provinces. In other words, the people of South Africa say, “We use this agency to collect it. We use this agency to control it." It is a very easy thing to say that because we happen to use a Federal agency to collect taxes it means that some man hired by the Federal Government should have the control. That does not follow. The CHAIRMAN. Well, does not South Africa have a dual form of government similar to the one that we have here? Mr. MORT. It is very similar. They have very much the same form. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the same? Mr. MORT. They do not have exactly the same form of govern ment. The CHAIRMAN. The government here, of course, is State. The Federal Government has absolutely no control over State matters, and within the boundaries of the State. Now, is that true in South Africa? Mr. MORT. No; down there the Union Government has all the control, the Federal Government. The CHAIRMAN. Is it one government? Mr. MORT. It is one government. The Provinces are creatures of the National Government, and still the power is put in the Provinces. Mr. MASON. That is the point. While they have the power in the Federal Government there, they delegate that power to the local governments, so far as education is concerned? Mr. MORT. Right. Mr. MASON. And we have not the power in our Federal Government. It is already in the States, and we want to let it stay there, in the States. [Applause.] Mr. MORT. Right. Mr. FLETCHER. In making this record clear, I think that is rather confusing. You do not mean to imply that the Federal Government of South Africa dictates to the local communities their educational system, curricula in detail? Mr. MORT. No; it does not. It has the power to do so. Mr. FLETCHER. But it does not do it? Mr. MORT. It does not do it. Mr. FLETCHER. It leaves that entirely to local control? Mr. MORT. Right. Mr. FLETCHER. Merely furnishes the money and controls that? Mr. MORT. Yes. It is passed out on a basis something like this legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Let us get straight on this. In South Africa the central government has absolute control in doing as it sees fit? Mr. MORT. Yes; that is, the people do. The CHAIRMAN. The same as the Federal Government in its Federal jurisdiction has different agencies. For instance, you take under the W. P. A. and the P. W. A, the Federal Government has absolute control, but it designates an agency to administer it. But the Federal Government has absolutely no control over State matters. That is the difference between the Government of South Africa and this Government. Mr. MORT. Right. The CHAIRMAN. Now, my colleague says he does not understand it. Mr. FLETCHER. One answer seemed to say Federal control and another answer seemed to say not. That will be important when we come to consider this in the House. The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to compare the difference between the South African Government where the central agency collects all the taxes and returns them back to the different subdivisions, local subdivisions, and the Federal Government here in this country which, while we have a right to collect taxes under certain conditions and we have the right to distribute money to State agencies, the same Federal Government in this country cannot tell the local districts in their respective States, within the bounds of the State, what to do. So we have no control over the State government in that respect. That is the difference between the one and the other. Mr. FLETCHER. Is not that the same way that South Africa controls the situation? The CHAIRMAN. No; in South Africa the central government has control of all of the territory and there are no independent local subdivisions. Mr. FLETCHER. In other words, you mean to say that in South Africa the central government tells them what to study and what their cirricula system shall be, and interferes with the local govern ment. The CHAIRMAN. No; I am not speaking of the school system in itself; I am speaking of the Government as a whole. Mr. MORT. The Union of South Africa is a union of four States, under four different agencies of the Government at one time. They are very jealous of their rights as States or Provinces, but they agreed that the sovereignty was in the union; we agreed that the sovereignty was in the States, excepting as it was delegated to the Federal Government. But so far as the pattern, the actual working pattern, is concerned-I spent considerable time down there-the actual working pattern is very much like our own. They look to us a great deal in matters of-well, what I mean to say is they seem to have a very high regard for us. Mr. MASON. But in this particular respect maybe it would be a good thing for us to look to them, collecting the money and distributing it to the schools. Mr. MORT. Yes; we need to utilize our Federal agencies, we the people, to collect and distribute sufficient funds to equalize the burden of a respectable foundation program among the States. We might conceive of the Federal Government acting as a central tax-collecting agency for the purpose of handling the taxes which are given to administer within the boundaries of the States. This would help the States in their problems by shifting the burden from the property tax in order that local initiative may not be throttled by inadequate local spending. We have done a lot by local initiative in this country, but I can take you to places up and down this Nation where local initiative is starved to death by the fact that there is nothing to support it in the way of taxation. One of the big problems these States have, in addition to equalization of the burden-and that is the answer to the question by the gentleman over here as to what Pennsylvania might get from these funds one of the biggest problems that we have is the realignment of the property burden so that the property tax can be reinstated fully as a base for local initiative. We talk a lot about it. It is time we were doing something about it in the way of shoring it up. I favor this bill because it has in it both of those potentialities. Fifty-six percent of the money provided by this bill represents pure equalization; 44 percent is money collected by the Federal Government to be sent back to the States in relation to their tax-paying ability. Of the 56 percent, none goes to the richest States. Of the 44 percent, the richest States get what they pay and the poorest States get what they pay. Gentlemen, whatever our regard for sticking to the traditional methods of support, we are faced with the problem that says that the American people must utilize its Federal agencies for the funding of education. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Randolph is here and wishes to make a short statement, and we will hear him at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. RANDOLPH. Chairman Palmisano and members of the Education Committee of the House of Representatives, I deeply appreciate the opportunity of coming before the committee and saying to you that individually I favor the broad principles of the legislation proposed in the Harrison-Black-Fletcher bill calling for Federal aid to the States in going forward with their educational programs in the future. I want at this time, with the permission of the committee, to introduce certain individuals who are here from the State of West Virginia. I understand that the committee is not able today to hear these people, but I do want to present them to you. I should like to present first Miss Elizabeth Goodall, who is the legislative chairman for the State of West Virginia for the National Education Association. Would you stand, Miss Goodall, please? (Miss Goodall rose.) I want it to be made part of the record that she is here in favor of the passage of the legislation. And Miss Cecelia Goodall, teacher in the Charleston High School, the capital of our State. (Miss Cecelia Goodall rose.) I want it to be made part of the record that she is here in favor of this legislation. Also, Mr. F. Ray Power, who is the assistant State superintendent of the schools of West Virginia and is here representing the educa 3410-37-17 tional interests of our State. Mr. Power, will you stand, please, that the committee may know of the interest of West Virginia in this legislation. (Mr. Power rose.) And President W. H. S. White, who is the president of the State Teacher's College at Shepherdstown, who is here as a past president of the State Education Association of West Virginia, appearing for that group. (Mr. White rose.) Thank you, President White. Now, at least two of these parties, Mr. Power, the assistant State superintendent of schools, and President White, representing the State Education Association, have prepared statements which they would like to file as a part of the record of these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Permission has been given. (The papers referred to follow :) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY F. RAY POWER, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, WEST VIRGINIA, REPRESENTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF WEST VIRGINIA THE NEED OF FEDERAL AID TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF WEST VIRGINIA The West Virginia State Department of Education urges the passage of H. R. 2288, known as the Harrison-Black-Fletcher bill. In behalf of this position the following facts are presented: The State of West Virginia is greatly in need of the funds which this measure would provide. The State is also in position to wisely use such funds for improving and equalizing public education. Since the admission of our State to the Union, her citizens have been greatly interested in public education and have made heroic sacrifices to provide an adequate system of free schools. Despite this attitude and effort the improvement of the schools has not kept pace with the roads and other public services, due principally to the inability of the taxpayers to supply the funds to maintain a modern progressive school system. During the economic depression the burden of property taxes became unbearable to the people of West Virginia. As a result, they voted into their constitution a tax limitation and classification of property amendment which drastically reduced the maximum rates which may be levied on property. The reduction to schools from local revenues was approximately 60 percent. Obviously, the State was faced with the problem of revising completely its revenue system or its school system or both. Both things were done. The need of a larger local unit for school taxation purposes was apparent. All the 398 independent and magisterial school districts were abolished and 55 county school districts were established. The fiscal effect of such a law was that much of the segregation of the income from the property tax was abolished, the equalizing effect of a county-wide levy being substituted for the results of the district levy which had accentuated greatly local differences in wealth. The State also increased its tax range. At the present time the following types of taxes are levied; gross sales, or business-income tax; depletion tax (called gross sales); 2 percent consumers' sales (no exemptions for foods); chain store; gasoline taxes: automobile licenses; inheritance and gift taxes; property; beer and similar license fees; profits from State liquor stores. The State has all the variety of taxes that are levied in any State and some that are levied in none. In an effort to solve its own problems, the State has increased State aid to local schools from $2,000,000 to approximately $13,800,000. State aid has been increased this year, but probably four or five counties will not be able to finance the minimum term due to increases in average daily attendance and higher teacher qualifications. These latter items have increased greatly in the State school budget in recent years. Quite often it is urged that before Federal aid for public schools is approved legally, the States should place their fiscal and educational houses in order. |