« ZurückWeiter »
Mr. REEVES. This one Commission of the American Federation of Teachers does oppose that provision.
Senator Smith. You have eliminated the provision with reference to trusteeship? That will go out entirely?
Mr. REEVES. As far as title II is concerned, that would not then be necessary. But I do wish a little later to discuss the problem of trusteeship.
Senator DONNELL. Dr. Reeves, you said this one Commission of the American Federation of Teachers opposes applying the proceeds of title II to sectarian or private schools. Is there any commission of the American Federation of Teachers that has favored the application of those funds to private or sectarian schools!
Mr. REEVES. That question will have to be asked of the officers of the Federation. They will be prepared to answer.
Senator DONNELL. You are not informed on that?
Senator DONNELL. You are not informed as to the Board, or as to the Commission of the American Federation of Teachers which favors the application of title II in part to the sectarian or private schools ?
Mr. REEVES. I am not informed on that. I would like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, my interpretation of this provision of aid to nonpublic schools as it now reads by giving an illustration of a hypothetical case. I am doing this because some people have raised the question as to whether the language is now clear, and for that reason I wish to present my interpretation of it, and if the language is not clear and does not bear out this interpretation, then we hope that if this is retained in the bill it will be with this interpretation.
Assume that on the basis of educational load and financial ability a State were to receive $10,000,000 as its share of Federal aid under title II. Assume further that 10 percent of the children in that State are attending nonpublic schools. The first claim on this $10,000,000 would be 75 percent of the total, or $7,500,000, for the salaries of teachers in public schools.
Because the nonpublic schools carry 10 percent of the educational load in this hypothetical case, they would be eligible to receive 10 percent of the remaining $2,500,000 for educational expenditures other than teachers' salaries. The remainder of the $2,500,000, or 90 percent of the total, would go to needy public schools to be used for current educational expenditures of any type, including teachers' salaries. Under the conditions described in this hypothetical State, nonpublic schools would have available $250,000, or 2.5 percent, of the total of $10,000,000 that comes to the State under title II.
Reports that are available of comprehensive studies of educational needs within the several States, and of the ability of the States to meet such neėds, provide evidence to show beyond any question that the equalization provision set forth in title II is essential, and that $300,000,000 is not too large an amount to meet the needs of the States for improving their schools.
In the earlier hearings of this committee on S. 181, Prof. John Norton, of Teachers College, Columbia University, appearing as a witness, presented this committee with the results of his Nation-wide study of educational finance for the year 1939-40, the last year prior to the beginning of the war that may be considered as representing a normal situation.
Although the techniques of investigation employed by Dr. Norton differed in many respects from those used in the earlier studies with which I was associated, and in some respects represented an improvement
upon these earlier techniques, the general findings of Dr. Norton's study and the earlier studies are similar.
In fact, every Nation-wide study of this problem that has been made during recent years by any committee or commission, whether composed of educators or laymen or both, has arrived at the same general conclusions as those reached by Dr. Norton and presented to this committee. In every case, the facts gathered have led the persons making the studies to conclude unanimously that the educational needs of American children and youth cannot be met without a substantial amount of aid from the Federal Government.
I have been informed that Dr. Norton's entire study, published in two large volumes, has been placed at the disposal of the committee. Because Dr. Norton has so ably presented the committee with the facts assembled in his most recent and very comprehensive study, I shall not burden you with a repetition of these facts.
It seems clear to me that the case for Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity among the States has already been made. Therefore, I shall
turn to the second appropriation authorized in this bill. Senator Walsh. I think the committee ought to suspend at this time in order that the members may go to the floor of the Senate, and, therefore, the committee will stand adjourned to 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Statement of Roscoe C. Walker, Trenton, N. J., State council secretary of the State Council of New Jersey Junior Order of United American Mechanics, secretary of the State of New Jersey Federation of American Patriotic Societies, which includes in its membership the State council bodies of the Daughters of America, Patriotic Order of Americans, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Patriotic Order Sons of America and the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, and legislative representative of the general executive board, which includes in its membership the State council bodies of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, Inc., of Virginia, the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, Inc., of New York, the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of New Jersey and the Fraternal Patriotic Americans of Pennsylvania, is submitted by direction of the above-named patriotic fraternal societies :)
TRENTON, N. J., April 11, 1945. Senate 717 would appropriate $550,000,000 each year to supplement educational costs in the various States and Territories of the Union, and although section 1 of title 1 of the bill would seem to assure continued State control of public education, it is a matter of history that parial control leads to complete control, by the body that has in the hands, the control of the funds when provided by the Federal Government.
Therefore, for this reason, if there were no others, we are opposed to the proposed legislation.
However, there are many other objections to the proposed legislation, which when given consideration by the proper committees of the Congress should result in its rejection.
The bill provides for an additional agency of the Federal Government, with an increase of personnel and expenditures, including salaries, travel and subsistence, thus adding to the great army of Federal appointments and employees and the continued increase of the cost of government.
The bill provides a new field for increased costs of education by including in its provisions Federal aid to nonpublic, private, and religious schools and is in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the principle of the separation of church and state.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and to provide transportation, textbooks, library facilities, and other educational projects to religious controlled nonpublic schools is surely in violation of that language.
In Davis v. Benson (133 U. S. 333, 33 L. Ed. 637, 640), the Court said:
"The first amendment to the Constitution in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or forbidding the free exercise thereof was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect.”
The States of the Union have provided public educational opportunities for all children without cost to the children or their parents, and they do not deny the right of nonpublic schools to operate, however it would seem not only advisable but fair, that the expenses of the nonpublic schools be met by those responsible or those benefited thereby, because it is reasonable to assume that if the cost is provided in whole or in part by any other agency, be it State or Federal, control in whole or in part is bound to follow. We must not overlook the fact that if Congress may directly or indirectly aid or support private nonpublic sectarian or denominational schools with public funds, then it would be a short step forward at another session to increase such aid, and only another short step to some regulation and at least partial control of such schools by successive legislative enactment. From partial control to an effort at complete control might well be the expected development.
The proposed legislation would violate the cardinal principle of our country, the complete separation of church and state, because donations of public funds are provided for nonpublic religious controlled schools, and therefore such contributions would be in aid and of assistance to the teaching of sectarianism..
Our public schools do not teach religion and as a result all the children meet on an equal basis, in regard to race or creed, and are entitled to follow the dictates of their hearts and conscience, in respect to the religious beliefs.
We believe in religion, we believe it should not be taught in the public schools, we believe that the teaching of religion belongs to the home and the church and that no school teaching its particular brand of religion is entitled to Federal or State aid.
This proposed legislation will bring forward the religious difference of our people and place our Nation in the position of furnishing financial and other assistance in the teaching of religion.
All of the members of the above-mentioned patriotic organizations believe in the existence of a supreme being, are loyal to the Constitution of the United States, and favor the continuance of the nonsectarian free public school system, and urge in the best interest of our country and its cherished institutions that the proposed legislation be decisively defeated :
By keeping church and State separate and distinct, each performing its functions without aid or support from the other, we have avoided the religious prejudices, conflicts, and persecutions experienced in other countries. Any union of church and state whatever would have emphasized our religious differences. The "fundamental conception of civil and religious liberty" would not have “brought together our forefathers of all religious persuasions upon common ground," and the "constitutional compact of our national life" would not have produced "our present harmonious and cherished design of national existence, the idealic conception of Webster 'an indestructible union of indestructible states' ” (Knibb v. Knibb, 94 N. J. S. 747), if the principle of separation of church and state had not been a part of our forefathers' conception of civil and religious liberty. It has been very essential to the elimination of discord and strife over religious differences. Had the functions of Government been permitted by our State and Federal Constitutions to foster the religious beliefs of any group of our people we would never have acquired “our present harmonious and cherished design of national existence."
Many American statemen have expressed their views of the subject of the separation of State and sectarian schools and I close this statement with an excerpt from a speech of President Grant, delivered to G. A. R. veterans at Des Moines, Iowa, in September 1875, quoted in the Catholic World, 22: 434, 435, January 1876:
“Leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate."
I respectfully recommend that Senate bill 717 be retained in the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Respectfully submitted.
Roscoe C. WALKER. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee recessed to 10 a. m. of the following day, Thursday, April 12, 1945.)
FEDERAL AID FOR EDUCATION
THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1945
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator David I. Walsh presiding.
Present: Senators Walsh, Hill, Chavez, Ball, Î'unnell, Smith, Donnell, and Morse.
Senator Walsh. The committee will come to order, please. You may proceed, Dr. Reeves.
I will suggest to the other witnesses that the committee is anxious to hear their views on the details of the bill rather than the general discussion of the need for the bill. You can save our time a good deal by confining your views to the various portions of this bill. All right, you may proceed, Dr. Reeves.
STATEMENT OF FLOYD W. REEVES—Resumed
Mr. REEVES. In looking over my testimony of yesterday, I discovered that through an error in the typing of the material the name of one member of the commission was omitted. I
very much and wish now to correct that error. Miss Florence Thorne, Director of Research of the American Federation of Labor, served as a member of our commission and rendered a most valuable service to the commission.
Our commission gave most careful consideration over many months to the question raised yesterday as to whether a formula should be written into this bill for the distribution of funds under titles II and III, thus doing away with the need for a National Board of Apportionment. There are valid arguments on both sides of this question that need to be considered, and honest persons who have carefully and thoughtfully considered the issue can easily disagree in this matter.
The advantages of writing a formula into a Federal aid bill have been presented to this committee many times in the past. Certainly a formula would provide a guarantee that political factors would not be considered in the allocation of funds, and that is an important point. But the disadvantage of writing any formula into a bill is that such a procedure, to some extent, freezes the funds in a way that makes it difficult to meet emergencies that may arise as a result of rapid and unforeseen migration of population, such as we had during the early 1930's, and again during this war period, and will have again after the war ends. Our commission weighed this matter carefully and decided unanimously that insofar as title II and a part of title III 73384-45-pt. 2