« EdellinenJatka »
be assured of their full share of the Federal funds, and their full minimum of education.
Dr. CONANT. It would seem to me from the evidence I have heard that the cases where Federal money has been spent and the issue of Federal control raised were where the enforcement ran directly from Federal agents to small local communities. It seems to me that is unfortunate.
As I understand S. 472 and the other bills, the control is of an audit nature and flows directly to the States, so that the implementation of it is rather through State officials. Am I right?
Senator HILL. Yes. And as experience shows, where you have it running through the State officials, you do not have any Federal interference or Federal control.
Dr. CONANT. Exactly.
Senator HILL. Where you have had complaints, perhaps the basis of complaints of Federal interference or some Federal control has been where you have provided Federal funds that have not gone through your State authorities or through your existing State systems, so to speak. Maybe in some crisis, such as we had during the depression, WPA's funds were not administered through your State authorities. There you had the situation where perhaps you did have some Federal interference, but the moneys going to these schools were incident really to the main purpose which was to provide jobs and to pay somebody a salary so that a person might continue a job.
But, wherever you have the money going as these bills would provide, you have not had any Federal interference. Is that not true? Dr. CONANT. That is what it would seem to me. It seems to me
this issue of Federal control is one of those things where if proper administrative mechanism can be set up by law there will be no Federal control to any extent, or in any way jeapordize our local system of decentralized public schools.
Senator AIKEN. Without saying so officially, it appears to one member of this committee at least that no legislation will be enacted by this Congress which does involve Federal control of State education systems. Maybe I shouldn't say that at this time but it is so perfectly obvious that I think it is a perfectly safe statement to make. The other matter which comes to mind is prompted by the question which you ask as to why should the citizens of a relatively wealthy State be taxed to help the education in poorer States. Now, it seems to be inferred or implied by many advocates of Federal aid to education that we should use the "means test" on States which are to receive Federal aid for education. In other words, wealthy States would get very little assistance and poorer States would get more assistance.
I am wondering what you think about the application of the "means test". In other words, must the States take the poor debtor's oath as we call it in New England, before they get the aid?
One of the reasons that prompted my introduction of S. 199 is that it seemed to me education has now become a national responsibility with 60 percent of the people living in States other than the ones in which they were born and presumably received their early education. It seems to me that as a matter of responsibility, we should furnish Federal funds so much per pupil for each child in average daily attendance at the public schools. I wonder if you had
made any study to see whether under such policy the wealthy States really would be penalized any less or any more, or how far that would be from the amount which the States would finally receive through application of the formula.
It is obvious that this money is to be paid out of excise and income taxes which are paid by the wealthy States and I have had some tables prepared which indicate to me that there is not so much difference after all in the cost to the wealthy States as to whether this is a percapita proposition by the Federal Government to the pupils in all States, or whether the money is provided through the means of a formula which requires separate figures for each State.
Have you made any study of that?
Dr. CONANT. I cannot claim to have made any study, but I have heard this argument very often made by people who are unconvinced, shall I say, of Federal aid, either on the formula you suggest of a straight per capita or on one of these with a sliding scale depending on the resources of the State. Because, I take it that even if you distribute so much for every State you are really doing more for the poor States, if you take the money from the rich. There is this element in it, whichever formula you use.
I think you have to meet this argument at least I have found you do in talking to people-am I right about that? Senator AIKEN. I think so.
Dr. CONANT. However, you construct the tables.
Senator AIKEN. I have figures for different States as to the amount they pay in taxes, the amount they would receive back under different bills, the amount they would get under a formula or the amount they would get under direct appropriation of so much per pupil, and I have not had time to analyze those figures thoroughly, but I have looked them over enough to indicate to me that perhaps there is not so much difference between the two plans, and that the direct appropriation would be the simpler.
Senator Green's State of Rhode Island and your State of Massachusetts are comparatively wealthy States, but under each planSenator GREEN (interposing). For example, paying the same amount to the teacher in the poorest State as paid to the teacher in the highest-paid State, there is a great difference in the percentage of increase. One teacher in the poorer State might get twice as much as she did before, but the percentage of increase would be smaller in the higher-paid States where the cost of living is very much greater. Senator AIKEN. Well, the wealthy State pays the bill under any plan.
Senator HILL. On this high-cost-of-living business, I do not think there is so terribly much difference in the cost of living in the different States. I do think that some people in some States are able to maintain a much better standard of living.
Senator GREEN. Well, my point is that if you compare the two, you ought to take the percentage of increase that the teacher gets in one place and in another that offsets the apparent discrepancy that otherwise appears.
Dr. CONANT. Well, I take it, Senator Aiken, under either formula one cannot dodge the question that the wealthy States are spending more in proportion for this aid than those in the poorer States.
That is as it works out with the income tax. I have not gone through the figures, but that seems almost obvious, so you have to meet that question.
Senator AIKEN. That is obvious. The money has to be collected where the money is, and I think under either procedure whether we appropriate more to the poorer States, under a formula, or the "means test" or whether we make a direct appropriation for each pupil in average daily attendance in all States, that the final cost of the wealthy States would be just about the same. Now, I am not sure of that. I do not want to say that as a fact, but as I looked over those figures, it appears to me there is not so much difference between the simpler direct plan and the more complicated plan of figuring out by means of a formula as one might think at first glance.
And, there is one thing that I, for one, would like to do and that is to not have the slightest taint of a relief problem connected with our schools. I think it is a duty and not a relief problem.
Senator THOMAS. Amen to that.
Senator AIKEN. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Dr. Conant, for your testimony here this morning. It is going to be very helpful to us. It is going to help us get off to a good start in these hearings, and I am sure we will create interest in the matter of Federal aid to education.
We cannot say right now just when the next hearing will be held. We hope it may be on the 21st of April, and the hearings will probably continue until all that can be said on the subject that is worth saying has been said and all groups in the country have had an opportunity to be heard.
Probably, the hearings will extend over a period of 2 weeks when we start them again. It is the hope of the chairman, and I am sure it is the hope of the other members of the subcommittee, that the full committee may bring out some proposed legislation which will be accepted and will go far toward relieving the present distressed situation in which our secondary and elementary schools find themselves in almost the whole country.
At this point, without objection, Senator Taft's statement, and a statement prepared by Senator McCarran, together with my statement, may be inserted in the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN TO ACCOMPANY S. 199
Section 2, Declaration of Policy, states: "In order to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare it shall be the national policy to provide for the greater equalization of educational opportunities among and within the States and Territories." This purpose is to be accomplished (1) by the establishment of a uniform national floor under current educational expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance at all public elementary and public secondary schools; (2) by contributing to the equalization of educational opportunities for children whose parents feel constrained to send them to nonpublic tax-exempt schools of secondary grade or less through providing Federal grants sufficient to pay not to exceed 60 percent of the cost of providing necessary pupil transportation, school health examinations and related school health services and nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books, for such schools. The means for the accomplishment of these two purposes are set forth in titles I and II, respectively.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TITLE I
Section 101 of title I authorizes the appropriation of amounts as follows: For the fiscal year 1948, $20 per pupil reported in average daily attendance during 1946.
For the fiscal year 1949, $30 per pupil reported in average daily attendance during 1947.
For the fiscal year 1950, $40 per pupil reported in average daily attendance during 1948.
For the fiscal year 1951, $50 per pupil reported in average daily attendance during 1949.
For the fiscal year 1952 and each fiscal year thereafter, $60 per pupil reported in average daily attendance during the second preceding fiscal year.
It is estimated that the appropriations so authorized would amount to approximately $400,000,000 for the fiscal year 1948; $600,000,000 for the fiscal year 1949; $800,000,000 for the fiscal year 1950; $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 1951; and $1,200,000,000 for the fiscal year 1952 and thereafter.
In arriving at these estimates 19,602,772 was taken as the number of pupils in average daily attendance in public elementary and public secondary schools of the continental United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, as reported to the United States Office of Education. Assuming a national income for the fiscal year 1952 of $150,000,000,000 the Federal appropriation of $1,200,000,000 for that year under the terms of the proposed act would amount to less than 1 percent of the total national income.
BASIS OF ALLOTMENT TO THE STATES (TITLE I)
Funds are to be distributed to the States in proportion to the number of pupils in average daily attendance in all public elementary and public secondary schools of the State during the second fiscal year next preceding the year for which an appropriaton is made. Thus the appropriation for the fiscal year 1948 would be distributed on the basis of State reports of the number of pupils in average daily attendance for 1946. This provides sufficient time for all States to secure and compile accurate and uniform statistics concerning the number of pupils in average daily attendance and concerning their expenditures per pupil for current expense and to report the same to the Commissioners as the basis for allotment of funds. Table I, which follows, shows allotments to States for the fiscal years 1948 and 1952. This table is necessarily based upon statistics of average daily attendance for the fiscal year 1944, the latest year for which such statistics were available from the United States Office of Education.
The basis for the distribution of allotments to the States contained in section 102 and illustrated in table I recognizes:
(1) That the national interest in education extends to each and every pupil in attendance at public elementary and secondary schools;
(2) That the contribution of the Nation to the support of education in the States is, therefore, best related directly to the educational load that each State carries as measured by the number of pupils in average daily attendance;
(3) That the Federal Government through its fiscal policies and machinery should collect taxes from all citizens in relation to their ability to pay;
(4) That a portion of the tax moneys so collected by the Federal Government should be returned to the States for educational purposes in direct proportion to the number of pupils being educated;
(5) That the Federal funds so returned to the States should provide a uniform national floor under education, thereby contributing markedly to the equalization of educational opportunity among and within the States.
AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS (TITLE I)
Section 103. Availability of appropriations, sets forth explicitly and completely each and every Federal condition for the receipt of funds by a State. These Federal conditions or standards are of two general types the first having to do with State acceptance of the Federal grants, safeguarding of the funds, assuring expenditure only for the national purpose intended by the Congress. Thus, to receive its allotment, a State through its legislature must (a) accept the provisions of the act, (b) provide for official custody of the funds, (c) designate or create a State educational authority to be responsible for the policies under which the funds are used, within the State, (d) provide for an audit by the State of the expenditure of Federal funds by local school jurisdictions, (e) provide for a system of reports from these local school jurisdictions to the State educational authority, (f) provide for reports from the State educational authority to the United States Commissioner of Education.
The second type of Federal condition, set forth in paragraph (b) of section 103, is in the nature of required matching from State and local revenue sources of the Federal funds allotted to the States. Thus, States must (1) continue to spend per pupil in average daily attendance for current expense from State and local resources at least as much as they had been spending in the fiscal year 1946, or $100, whichever is the lesser amount; (2) spend from all sources, namely, Federal, State, and local in 1948, and thereafter an amount per pupil in average