« EdellinenJatka »
is true in the high income State of New York. Here, only 2.6 percent of the State's income goes for education; but with a much higher total income and much smaller pupil population, the average class receives $4,150, over twice the United States average.
The CIO Economic Outlook has pointed up these facts for its union readers by a cartoon showing the newborn infant saying to the educational stork: "Try to land me in New York or California."
However, only Congress can do the necessary job-and that job is to correct the imbalance of State wealth to child residents by providing Federal assistance. As teachers and CIO members, we say to our elected representatives: Our Nation can no longer tolerate this injustice to our children. This condition is a mockery of equality of opportunity. Only the Federal Government can end this. To do so by establishing a minimum federally-supported educational program is a primary responsibility of this Congress.
There are shocking inequalities in the educational opportunities available to the Negro and white students. The South, which has the low-income States, is able to expend only $1,166 per classroom unit in the separate classes which are maintained for white students. This is about 25 percent below the United States average. But segregated Negro classrooms receive only an average of $477 a year. This is almost 75 percent less than the United States average. Ten percent of the Negro classrooms receive an average of $125 a vear.
It is impossible for us as teachers to understand the thinking which says to 6-year-old children taking the first step in the great venture of education: "You may not have books, sanitary facilities, pictures, and a good schoolhouse, because your skin is dark." As teachers believing in human dignity and the democracy of our country we urge upon Congress the obligation to provide these children with Federal aid and a guarantee that the aid be given without discrimination.
Recently, the New York Times undertook to assess the educational crisis by checking the findings of educators' associations against personal staff visits to superintendents and schools throughout the Nation. The New York Times of February 10, 1947, reported these significant findings, among others:
"Three hundred and fifty thousand teachers have left the American public schools since 1940."
"Seventy thousand teaching positions are unfilled because of the inability of communities to get the necessary teachers."
"Twenty percent of all teachers, or 175,000, are new to their jobs each year— twice the turn-over that existed before the war."
"Classroom teachers get an average of $37 a week today. Two hundred thousand get less than $25 weekly."
"Fewer students are entering the teaching profession than in the past. Twentytwo percent of all college students attended teachers' colleges in 1920; today 7 percent attend."
*"Six thousand schools will be closed because of lack of teachers; 75,000 children will have no schooling during the year."
"Two million children will suffer a major impairment in their schooling because of poor teachers."
"Five million children will receive an inferior education this year because of the inadequate teacher supply."
"Only 50 percent of the teachers employed in 1940-41 are still teaching today." "Fifty thousand men have left the teaching profession since 1940, and are not coming back. Only 15 percent of all elementary and high-school teachers are men.' "The United States spends 1.5 percent of its national income for its schools. Great Britain spends an estimated 3 percent; the Soviet Union spends 7.5 percent.' "School buildings are in a deplorable state all over the Nation. Nearly $5,000,000,000 will be needed to bring the educational plants into good condition."
This is a picture of destruction that has already impaired the opportunities for well-being and productivity of millions of future citizens. We in the National Teachers Division, United Public Workers of America, CIO, urge upon Congress passage of S. 472 as a fundamental step in removing the worst inequalities in American education and as an imperative necessity to the maintenance of our valued free public school system.
The National Teachers Division, UPW-CIO, endorsed S. 472 at the convention of the United Public Workers in 1946. We reemphasize our support, opposing, however, the provision for nonpublic school aid. This provision was added by the Educational Subcommittee in the Seventy-ninth Congress. It is contrary to the principles we support. We shall refer to our position on this section later.
We feel that S. 472, which provides a federally supported foundation program of $40 to all pupils, is a realizable Federal program which will remove the worst
inequities. Under this section, the State will receive the difference between the $40 per pupil 5-17 years and the amount which could be raised by the State and locality at the same rate of effort as the United States average effort to produce $40 yearly per school-age child. We understand that, as of 1943, 33 States would have received funds had this act been passed. We believe that this will do much to eradicate the worst educational blight spots in our country. The appropriations, beginning with $150,000,000 the first year to $250,000,000 by the third year, are without doubt within the means of Congress.
While this is essentially a more limited program than is necessary or than we would prefer, we support S. 472 because we believe that it follows the essential features of desirable Federal aid and-most important-it has achieved a great measure of congressional and community coalition. Previously, all Federal aid has been hamstrung by divergent interests. The urgency of a solution has brought about a consolidation of forces around this bill which represents at least a minimum of what educational proponents desire and, as such, we endorse the bill as a fundamental agreement of a coalescence of opinion of which we are part. We cannot support the section which was added in Senate subcommittee last June. Up until that time, the bill confined the allocations to public schools only. We support allocation to public schools only. The educational development of this country is a history of breaking away from the theocratic school of the colonial days, then breaking away from the pauper school. State by State recorded a vital struggle which involved the people and fundamental principles and which broke away from the system of church schools and pauper schools and established through a long period in the 1800's the public and free school. That there was important basic principle involved in the move toward public free schools is evident in the 46 State constitutions which directly or indirectly prohibit the use of public funds for sectarian religious purposes. Fundamentally, this struggle was a reemphasis in 46 States of the provision in the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The founders of our Federal Government thereby created a new political principle for the world and guaranties of basic political and religious freedom through separation of church and state. In so doing, they charted a course which became established tradition in the Nation, as evidenced by the incorporation of this thinking in the 46 State constitutions. Many State constitutions developed this further because the struggle to continue separation of church and state was not (and is not today) static. Therefore, many State constitutions contain specific prohibitions against use of any public moneys for sectarian purposes, with specific mention of schools.
We believe that the Congress should abide by this United States constitutional provision, this State history, and the educational policy which has been established. We believe that page 7 of S. 472 from lines 2 to 21 is unconstitutional and is against the tradition and best educational policy for our Federal Government.
The intent of the sponsors is no doubt to avoid collision with the States'-rights principle of the United States Constitution. However, we believe that in this case two important issues are in conflict. Congress must draw a line between the two. It is our opinion that the separation of church and state as historically established by our founding fathers and reinforced by the States makes it essential that the present Congress defend this issue.
Furthermore, as educators, we believe that development of only the publicschool system through Federal funds is essential. Our public schools are the main agencies for unifying our people. Any move which minimizes this growth, which draws children into segregated groups by religion, is destructive of that unity, as it has been detrimental to unity where races are segregated in schools. Certainly we uphold the right of parents to send their children to denominational or private schools. That is their privilege in a democracy. But we feel that the Government should not contribute financially to this. And to the extent that additional systems of parochial education are developed with public funds, to that extent have the public schools been retarded. Furthermore, both parents and sponsors of parochial schools admit that the main reason for sending pupils to these schools is to give training in religion. We believe the home and the church have this responsibility.
We are aware of certain court decisions upholding the "child benefit" theory. We believe that that theory should apply solely to problems of lunch and transportation where the payment should be made to the parent. No child should be
denied these benefits. However, where appropriation goes to the nonpublic school, we deem that an excess of authority and violation of our Constitution. We note also in this section that the wording is such as to allocate a slightly disproportionate amount in favor of the nonpublic schools. The bill says that the maximum amount a nonpublic school may receive shall be as the total Federal aid (public and nonpublic) is to the total State aid to public schools. One could understand the logic if the bill stipulated that the maximum amount of Federal aid to nonpublic schools shall be as the total Federal aid (public and nonpublic) is to the total State aid (public and nonpublic). That would be the method of an exact proportion. We would oppose this, too, because we feel that basically it is divisive, against the American tradition, and a threat to the further development and eventually the maintenance of the public-school system.
In conclusion, for the national teachers division, United Public Workers of America, CIO, we urge the Eightieth Congress to pass S. 472 to establish a realizable and necessary Federal fundation program for education. We oppose the allocation of Federal funds to nonpublic schools.
FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION
FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1947
UNITED STATES SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a. m. in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Forrest C. Donnell presiding.
Present: Senators Donnell (presiding), Murray, Ellender, and Hill. Senator DONNELL. The committee will be in order, please. In the absence of Senator Aiken, I have been requested to preside at this meeting this morning. We ask the pardon of those present for being a few minutes late. An unavoidable situation arose which made the lateness occur.
The first witness this morning is the Reverend William E. McManus, assistant director, department of education, National Catholic Welfare Conference.
We had the pleasure of having Reverend McManus appear before the committee preceding this-the committee of which this committee is a successor.
Please state your name for the record and your educational background briefly, if you please, sir.
STATEMENT OF REV. WILLIAM E. McMANUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE
Rev. MCMANUS. My name is William E. McManus, and I am assistant director of the department of education, National Catholic Welfare Conference.
My educational background could be stated briefly by saying that I attended both the public and parochial schools in Illinois-the Hawthorne Public School and the Ascension Parochial School-later attending the Quigley Preparatory Seminary and then the St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, Mundelein, Ill., where I was ordained, and later on I studied at the Catholic University of America.
May I ask that my brief submitted a few days ago be included in the record?
Senator DONNELL. It will be so included.
Reverend MCMANUS. This brief states our position on Federal aid, and presents some statistical data indicating the estimated savings to the Nation's taxpayers accruing from the operation of nonpublic schools.
This morning I shall endeavor, Mr. Chairman, to summarize the high points of this brief and to integrate its contents with some of the information presented by other witnesses. I do not care to repeat what has been expressed so eloquently by the other educators who during this week have presented such a convincing plea for Federal aid to education.
May I say at the outset that I agree fully with Senator Aiken's proposition that Federal aid to education is not essentially a religious controversy. Of course, I can understand how a Protestant taxpayer may be irked at the idea that his tax dollars help defray the cost of transporting a child to a parochial school; and I can understand how a Catholic taxpayer may be somewhat displeased at the idea of a child being transported at public expense to a Protestant denominational school. Both may claim that this practice is at least a slight infringement of their religious liberty. But where in the world is the tolerance which generally is so characteristic of this Nation? Is it not a travesty of religious freedom to claim that this Government of the people cannot furnish bus service for all children because in the process somebody's religious feelings might be offended? Must the school bus be a nonsectarian vehicle? Suppose that a parochial school child has been put off the school bus and is crushed under the wheels of a truck. Can the civic officials-the mayor, the coroner, and sheriff-look at the mangled body, shrug their shoulders, and absolve themselves of blame by saying, "The youngster was a nonpublic school child; if her parents had sent her to the public school, this would not have happened"?
And yet we know that there are public school administrators in this land of ours who would not permit parochial school children to be vaccinated at public expense. In the March issue of the Nation's Schools, a journal for school administrators, a poll was made of 500 representative school administrators. Half of them replied to the questionnaire. They were asked, "Do you think that public tax money should be expended to provide health and welfare services for pupils in nonpublic schools?" Sixty-two percent of them said "No." Of course, some people might say, "Well, the public schools are available. If parents want to send their children to parochial or other nonpublic schools, they must pay for this privilege. They must bear all the costs, including transportation, health and welfare services." Permit me to phrase this same thought in a slightly different manner. It is argued: The Government provides police and fire protection. If some people in a community are not satisfied with the public police and fire departments, they should not expect all the taxpayers to support another private police and fire department.
I would like to meet that argument head on. I do not believe that education is to be regarded as a governmental service similar to police or fire protection. The instinct of democracy within us-or, if you will, the vision of our founding fathers-has given us a system of education which is administered by a separate mechanism apart from other phases of political organization. This typical American practice and I might say that it is a unique economic American practiceis a recognition of the fact that education does not belong to the Government in the same way as do other activities that need public support and control. May the day never come in our American democracy where the mayor or the chief of police or any other strictly govern