Sivut kuvina

that the contribution of the Federal Government investment were made larger to take steps to insure that the children out of school now would be brought into school in regular attendance.

I will say briefly a word concerning the question that Congressman Flecher asked. Before arguing directly I would like to have inserted in the record one or two things concerning Negro and white schools and the manner in which they have shared not in the State or local funds but in Federal funds.

There was read into the record early this week the provisions of the Morrill Act which requires just and equitable distribution of all Federal funds.

May I call the attention of the committee to what has happened with certain Federal funds for land-grant colleges of the States that do not have such a provision? This statement I have here shows the distribution of Federal funds between white and Negro landgrant colleges in 17 States for the years 1934 and 1935. The landgrant fund of 1862 provided to 17 States, which have separate schools for whites and Negroes, $176,000. All of that money went into schools for whites.

The Hatch-Adams fund for agricultural research gave to those 17 States $480,000, all of which went to the white land-grant colleges. The Purnell fund for agricultural research provided $960,000, all of which went to the white land-grant colleges.

The Smith-Lever fund for agricultural research provided for $2,822,764, all of which went to white land-grant colleges.

The Capper-Ketchum fund for agricultural extension provided $380,862, all of which went to the white land-grant colleges.

Additional cooperative extension funds amounting to $475,000 all went to the white colleges.

With regard to these latter three funds, I will mention the fact that the white institution does provide for some extension of activities among Negroes in the State. It seems to be the unanimous opinion, however, that in terms of needs Negroes have not shared adequately in those funds.

By contrast I should like to call attention to what has happened in some other funds that the Negroes shared to some extent.

In the Smith-Hughes fund in those States they got 14 percent. In emergency funds, totaling $2,746,467, the Negroes got 3.7 percent. Mr. DEROUEN. Can you just submit that for the record to save time? It is getting late.

Mr. WILKERSON. I will do that with just one comment that is most significant in that respect. There is one Federal fund, the MorrillNelson fund, referred to the other day, in which Negroes have shared equitably. The percentages you will find for Negro and white are far closer to the population ratio of the two groups than is true of any of the other funds, the reason being that the States which have separate schools indicated in response to the requirement of just and equitable division therein laws calling for such a division, and they have operated accordingly. The States and the percentages are indicated in this statement here, which I will put in the record.

By virtue of the Morrill-Nelson Act provision and subsequent State laws enacted in accordance with that provision, there has been an equitable and just division on certainly a population ratio in most States of America between the white and Negro schools.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

Distribution of Federal funds between white and Negro land-grant colleges in 17 States, 1934-35


[blocks in formation]


43, 831 516, 193



[blocks in formation]


[Including only funds in which Negroes shared and the grand total of all funds]

[blocks in formation]

Source: Land Grant Colleges and Universities (preliminary report), year ended June 30, 1935, by W. J. Greenleaf, specialist in the higher education, U. S. Office of Education (Circular 149).



Seventeen States maintain separate land-grant institutions for white and Negro students. Morrill-Nelson funds are required to be divided between these institutions in each State on an equitable basis, usually according to a census

1 Ch. III of the Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1930-32, Bulletin 1933, no. 2 (advance pages) (pp. 377-379).


classification. Amounts received by the several institutions are detailed in table 28. The basis for division of the Morrill-Nelson funds in the different States is as follows:

Alabama.-Division is "based from year to year upon the ratio of the number of each race of legal school age to the population of school age in the State."

Arkansas.-Division is eight-elevenths to the University of Arkansas, and three-elevenths to the Negro college at Pine Bluff.

Delaware. By joint resolution of the legislature (1891) the State treasurer is directed and required to pay annually to the trustees of the State College for Colored Students 20 percent, one-fifth part of the sum.

Florida.-The funds are equally divided between the white and Negro landgrant colleges.

Georgia.-By joint resolution (1890) one-third of said fund shall be for the colored students and two-thirds for the whites.


The fund is divided on a basis of the ratio which the school census of colored children taken in the State bears to the school census in both races. Since 1893 the ratio has been 14.5 to 85.5 percent.

Louisiana.-Division is on a basis of the State census of educatable children between 6 and 18 years of age.

Maryland.-Division is on a basis of total population census.

Mississippi. The legislature provided (1892) that the funds be divided between the land-grant colleges for white and colored students in the proportion that the whole number of educatable children in the State of each race bears to the whole number of educatable children of both races.

Missouri. In 1891 the division was fixed at one-sixteenth for the benefit of Lincoln University (Negro) and fifteen-sixteenths for the State university, including the school of mines.

North Carolina.-By implication the provisions of the Morrill Act were accepted and approved by the legislature in 1891, and divided into the exact ratio in this State of the white population to the colored, and this provision to apply to the current and all succeeding appropriations.

Oklahoma. By an act March 10, 1899, Oklahoma divided the fund so that the Negro college receives one-tenth of the appropriation.

South Carolina.-In 1890 the legislature provided that the fund shall be equally divided between the land-grant institutions for white and for Negro students.

Tennessee. On a basis of scholastic population the Negro land-grant college receives six twenty-fifths, or 24 percent of the fund.

Texas. By act of 1890 Texas apportioned three-fourths of the fund to the institution for white students, and one-fourth to the Negro land-grant college. Virginia. The legislature has apportioned one-third of the fund to the Negro land-grant college, and two-thirds to the institution for white students. West Virginia. By provision of legislature, the Negro land-grant college has received $10,000 annually from Morrill-Nelson appropriations since 1912 (20 percent).

Proportion of appropriation received by Negro land-grant colleges in 1931-32.

[blocks in formation]

The Federal land-grant funds of 1862 are in the nature of endowment funds and not direct annual appropriations. These funds are invested by the several land-grant institutions in safe securities which yield reasonable rates of interest. Until April 13, 1926, these funds were required to earn 5 percent interest, but on that date the act was amended to read that "Such funds shall yield a fair and reasonable rate of return, to be fixed by the State legislatures, and that the principal thereof shall forever remain unimpaired." These funds which are detailed for each land-grant institution in table 29 total $22,496,957 and in 1931-32 yielded a return of $1,021,621 on invested funds, and $68,711

from rentals, deferred payments, etc. Nine-tenths of this income is expended for teachers' salaries.

In addition to these Federal appropriations and endowments, there are other Federal funds which are received by the land-grant institutions. These funds include land-grant funds other than 1862 funds, Hatch-Adams funds, SmithLever funds, Smith-Hughes funds, Clarke-McNary funds, Purnell funds, CapperKetcham funds, and additional cooperative extension funds. The grand total of all Federal money received by the land-grant institutions in 1931-32 was $17,512,064. The 17 Negro land-grant colleges received $354,716.

Mr. DEROUEN. Proceed.

Mr. WILKERSON. As I interpret, and as there have been quoted provisions of sections 3 and 6 of this act, it would seem that it calls for the State to do with this fund exactly what they have done with the Morrill-Nelson fund.

Mr. FLETCHER. The present bill as now written?

Mr. WILKERSON. Yes; I will read into the record one or two other things which I will not call your attention to particularly, showing the correspondence between the percentage of illiteracy between whites and Negroes in the Southern States and the school expenditures in those States. Take two States, for example, Mississippi which has 50 percent Negro population, the school expenditures per pupil for the white pupil are $45.34, per white child, and $5.45 for the Negro child, it has 2.7 percent of its white illiterate and 23.2 percent of its Negro population illiterate. By contrast, Oklahoma with 7.2 percent of the population Negro spent $34.25 per Negro child and $43.80 per white child, a considerably less proportion. In Oklahoma there are only 9 percent of the Negro population illiterate. I submit that statement for the record for 11 Southern States. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

Racial differences in school-Expenditures and in illiteracy (for 11 Southern States, 1930)

[blocks in formation]

Mr. WILKERSON. There is one other item which I think is significant and shows that the effect of educational inequalities and ratio in the South are not simply inequalities between races. A study of retarded children in Detroit, Mich., brought out some interesting facts concerning the percentage of retardation of Negro children who came from various States and among immigrant children residing in Michigan. The percentages of retardation show 4.76, practically identical with that of the white children. For children who came from Mississippi to Detroit it was 25 percent, from North

Carolina 21 percent, and from South Carolina 19.7 percent, and so on, on this list that I submit for the record, indicating that Detroit is spending money which to a large extent it would not have to spend but for these inequalities in the States.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Retardation among migrant and nonmigrant Negro pupils in the public schools of Detroit, Mich.

[blocks in formation]

(From F. B. Washington, The Negro Student in Detroit, survey of the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, 1926, sec. VIII.)

Mr. DEROUEN. Have you anything further to file?
Mr. WILKERSON. I shall not take more time.

May I note at this point that these points are mentioned primarily as items that we think would strengthen our bill.

Mr. DEROUEN. We are glad to have the statements.

Mr. WILKERSON. We are in favor of the bill.
(The statements referred to are as follows:)



Something over 3,300,000 of the Nation's children of school age (i. e., 5 to 17 years, inclusive) are not enrolled in any school, public or private. On the average day of the school term, approximately 10,000,000 children of school age nearly one-third of the total-are not present in any school.

The Harrison-Black-Fletcher bill provides no assurance that Federal aid to education will effect a significant increase in the proportion of educables who are actually attending school regularly.

By contrast, the Educational Equalization Act1 requires a gradual increase, up to at least 80 percent, in the proportion of a State's "public school population" actually in regular attendance at school. The status of the States and Territories in this regard is shown in the table following for the school year ending in 1930.

1 The Educational Equalization Act is sponsored by Hon. Caroline O'Day, of New York (H. R. 5360), and Hon. Byron Scott, of California (H. R. 5413).

« EdellinenJatka »