« ZurückWeiter »
have been attracted away from the profession by the more glittering rewards of service in the armed forces and the higher pay offered by defense or other industry. To coax these back, school boards must be enabled to compete with today's commercial pay scale. Those teachers who through devotion to duty have sacrificed these chances of personal advancement ought not to be penalized. They, too, have personal problems and most of them have some one or more persons dependent on them.
The objection that the passage of this bill could possibly bring about Federal dictation in State public school systems has been obviated by writing into the bill even stronger prohibitions against the possibility of such interference taken from the McClellan-Maybank amendment
of last year.
Federal grants have in the past been used to strengthen State educational systems without any interference from Washington in the State's management of its affairs. Many States are spending now to the limit of their ability and beyond on education, but, because they have more children of school age in proportion to their per capita wealth, they are not able to give all of their children an education comparable to that afforded children in wealthier States with a smaller proportion of child population.
It is manifestly in contradiction of the spirit of our own Declaration of Independence to deny to any child within the borders of America the same educational opportunities within the limits of public education that other American children have in other States. The Federal Government has stepped in in order to assure opportunities of access to markets to construct transcontinental highways at the general public expense because the general public benefits from them.
A child is going to become a very important asset in the postwar world. Mounting casualties on our western front emphasize that fact. Every child belongs in some measure to the Nation. It is, therefore, a matter of general public interest that he should be given the basic elements of an education, enabling him to become a fully developed human being with the ability to do his part in the world and stand up favorably alongside his fellow Americans.
The money which will be spent if this bill becomes a law will be the best investment Congress has ever made of public funds. It will yield a full crop of self-sustaining future taxpayers to help shoulder the country's burdens in place of a lot of underprivileged potential migrants having to lean on the taxpayer for public charity at a very possibly much greater expense. Senator AIKEN. Thank
Miss Smart. Father Hochwalt.
STATEMENT OF VERY REV. MSGR. FREDERICK G. HOCHWALT,
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE
Reverend HOCHWALD. Mr. Chairman, since the subject of Federal aid is again a current one, the department of education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference wishes to express its opposition to S. 181, which is entitled “A bill to authorize the appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in more adequately financing their system of public education during emergency, and in reducing the inequalities of educational opportunities through public elementary and secondary schools."
In defining the assistance to be extended by Federal funds S. 181 discriminates in the type of school to be aided. In section 5D it provides: that funds paid to a State under this Act shall be expended only by public agencies under public control,
Throughout the bill there are other similar references. In effect, this means a prohibition on the part of the Federal Government that would prevent the States, if they so pleased, from using Federal funds for the aid of private schools.
However, at the recent White House Conference on Rural Education, the President, speaking on Government financial aid, said:
It must purely and simply provide the guarantee that this country is big enough to give all of its children the right to a free education.
All right-thinking Americans would agree with the President's declaration. But the legislation proposed in Senate bill 181 seems to take issue with the inclusiveness of the President's position, since private schools have been excluded from participating in the proposed distribution of funds. It seems difficult to understand how the proposed legislation should fail to consider general welfare in the most democratic sense of the word.
There are groups of citizens within our country who maintain their own schools because their conscience requires that they bring their children up according to the tenets and in the spirit of the religion that they profess. Their right to maintain schools is protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion involves more than the opportunity to participate in public worship in a church of one's choice. It means, too, that citizens should enjoy the full freedom to live their religion and to enable their children to do likewise. For many of our citizens this means freedom to provide schools and means of education that accord with the dictates of their conscience. It is not enough for government to refrain from legislation that they would prohibit the existence of nonpublic schools. If the program of education within the United States is to be aided, then the real spirit of democracy and the true conception of general welfare should direct that this aid be extended to all children in all schools.
Catholic citizens of the United States are maintaining 2,119 secondary schools, 8,017 elementary schools, enrolling 2,399,908 children. They are supporting these schools out of their own resources and at the same time paying their share of the taxes which support public education.
The Department of Education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference maintains that aid given by the Federal Government for education should be distributed according to a law or plan that will bring this aid only to areas in which it is needed and where such need can be demonstrated; moreover, this distribution should be equitable to all children in that area without regard to color, origin, or creed; finally, this distribution should be extended to the children in attendance at any school that meets the requirements of compulsory education.
The Department of Education holds that, when Federal funds are distributed, they should supplement State, local, or private funds and never supplant them. These State, local, and private funds should be used to the utmost before invoking Federal assistance.
Federal aid should never impose in our country Federal control of education either in law or in practice. The American tradition of local control of education is more responsibe to the parent or to the family that has the primary and imprescriptable right in the education of children.
The department of education, National Catholic Welfare Conference, has in the past opposed educational legislation which was undemocratic, discriminatory, and wasteful of public funds. It has opposed measures so worded as to defeat the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity for all children in those areas where such equalization was really needed. It is un-American to offer as an argument for Federal aid to education the poverty and need of many children, and at the same time to exclude millions of other children, equally poor and in need, because of religious or racial considerations.
All fair-minded citizens, if not misinformed by propaganda, will oppose any bill advocating Federal aid which is not fair to all American children, regardless of color, origin, or creed.
In stating its official position, the department of education is opposed to
1. Senate bill 181 in its present form.
4. Any form of Federal aid which cannot be demonstrated as needed to meet the minimum educational requirements in areas where resources are inadequate.
5. Any distribution of Federal funds which shall not be equitable to all children in the area of need without regard to color, origin, or creed, as long as they are in attendance at any school that meets the requirements of compulsory education.
Senator AIKEN. There appear to be two other witnesses in the room who will wish to testify, Maj. Gen. Amos A. Fries and Mrs. Worrell. However, I expect that some of the other members of the committee who are necessarily absent this morning will wish to interrogate these witnesses, as I understand they are to present different views, or at least, some are to present different views than those that have already been expressed in regard to this bill.
Therefore, it does not seem best to have any more witnesses testify this morning.
The chairman of the committee has asked me to announce that hearings will be resumed at 10:30 tomorrow morning, when the witnesses whom we have not been able to hear today will be given an opportunity to testify.
(Whereupon, at 11:35 a. m., the committee recessed to 10:30 a. m. Friday, February 2, 1945.)
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to the recess, at 10:30 a. m. in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright, presiding.
Present: Senators Fulbright, Pepper, Smith, Donnell, Morse, Aiken, Johnston, and Ellender.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Is Mr. Russell Smith here? I notice he is not here, so we will proceed to the next witness.
Mrs. Worrell, will you please come forward!
STATEMENT OF MRS. MARGARET HOPKINS WORRELL, PRESIDENT
GENERAL OF THE WHEEL OF PROGRESS
Mrs. WORRELL. I am Mrs. Garet Hopkins Worrell, of 515 East Clifton Terrace, Washington, D. C., president-general of the Wheel of Progress, an organization dedicated to the progress of mankind in the pursuit of happiness and prosperity and to insure the safety and stability of our governmental institutions and defend the Constitution of the United States.
For 7 years I was national legislative chairman of the Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic and I now also represent as legislative chairman, the Society for Constitutional Security, and Spengler Unit of the American Legion Auxiliary, and as a member of the staff of the Nineteenth Woman's Patriotic Conference on Defense, which consists of 36 national organizations with millions of women voters throughout the United States which has just concluded its annual conference with 521 delegates present which unanimously passed the following resolution after due consideration:
Whereas on several occasions it has been attempted to secure the passage of Federal legislation appropriating to a National Educational Department, or Bureau, sums of money to be in turn disbursed to the educational departments of the several sovereign States; and
Whereas Federal financial assistance would increase the tendency toward vesting in the Federal Government control which should be retained in the sovereign States; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Nineteenth Women's Patriotic Conference oppose all such appropriations; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to every Member of the Congress of the United States.
All of the above-named organizations heretofore mentioned have consistently opposed this legislation now under consideration for the reason that it is unnecessary and will, in spite of words and arguments to the contrary, lead to Federal control; in fact, in itself it. constitutes Federal control.
The figures relative to the financial standing of the States is shown to be sufficient to take care of their educational needs, therefore Federal financing is unnecessary.
This bill, in part, is designated an emergency bill to increase teachers' salaries. It would appear, however, that the war has given the States vastly increased incomes-enough to increase the salaries of teachers about $200, which is all this bill calls for.
The so-called poorer States, those in the South, all have surpluses in their treasuries, with one exception, I believe-surpluses sufficient to finance this educational program in their individual States out of their own money.
Last year the State surpluses amounted to $700,000,000 and their State debts only $1,000,000,000. The United States today has a debt of $230,630,000,000.
The aforesaid poorer States have very little debt-in fact, Florida has had no State debt for many years, and if these States are really interested in their educational problems and use their surplus for that purpose they still have borrowing capacity to put it on a level high enough to maintain the average educational schooling, which is 8.4 years in school according to the reports of the last census. The amount of teachers' salaries is not the measure for adequate education, it is the teaching of the fundamentals—fundamentals are the life-blood of education. New York with its high salaries and its high income has only the average education of 8.4 school years.
In this bill the third highest amount paid, $17,036,200, goes to New York which has by far the highest income of the States. Certain proponents of this bill claim that the wealth of the oil States of the South is owned by New York or the Northeast and any tax there gives them a tremendous income. If that is a fact, why should they desire to add $17,036,200 to New York's school income, while States with the lowest income get a very meager amount in comparison?
Pennsylvania stands third in income in the United States, but she is to receive the largest amount out of this bill. Texas, whose income is seventh, notwithstanding the oil wells that are reputedly owned in New York, gets $18,135,254.
We fail to see how this could equalize educational opportunities even though it was measured by the salaries of the teachers. The average salary of teachers in New York would be $2,618 plus $200, the increase provided in this bill, totaling $2,818, while the average salary of teachers in Alabama, now $787, would be $987, and what it may receive from the $100,000,000 therefore, if opportunities are measured by the teachers' salaries, Alabama would not be greatly benefited. However, Alabama in point of income in the United States, is 21 according to the latest Department of Commerce findings, her income is $94,891,000 and she spends a little more than onefifth or 20 percent for her schools.
New York, whose income is $735,307,000, spends $299,913,322, or over 41 percent for her schools and yet her school attainment is only 8.4 school years, clearly showing that salary is no measure of school attainment or adequate education.
Utah, with the highest educational attainment, with teachers' salaries a little over one-half that of New York, spends only 25 percent