division then of the bill, the $100,000,000, is the equalization feature of the bill.

In view of the war emergency resulting in the depletion of our school faculties and the draining away of our trained teachers into the industrial and armed services of our Nation, we are proposing in another section of this bill an appropriation of $200,000,000 in an attempt to balance teacher income so as to keep them at their teaching jobs. A part of the emergency fund of $200,000,000 is to be spent in employing additional teachers for added services that are badly needed. We want particularly to adjust the salaries of teachers who have actually stayed on the job in the face of heavy sacrifices resulting from the increased cost of living. The $200,000,000 feature is for the duration of the emergency.

The money obtained through this bill is distributed through a formula written into the bill, to be handled through already established educational channels, so the matter of additional cost of the administration will be a very small minimum. The establishment of the formula for distribution of money reduces the possibility of Federal control to a point where it does not enter into the bill. None of us want Federal control of our public schools, and that is definitely taken care of.

Senator HILL. In other words, Doctor, under the provisions of the bill the money goes to the States.

Dr. Ivy. That is right.

Senator HILL. The money is disbursed by the States to State educational systems?

Dr. Ivy. Yes; under State laws.

Senator HILL. Under State laws?

Dr. Ivy. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator HILL. The formula for the allocation of money to the different States is mathematically arrived at?

Dr. Ivy. That is correct.

Senator HILL. In other words, it is not left to the discretion of any official of any Federal agency as to what each State will get. The bill specifically sets out the formula and that formula is worked out by mathematics so every State may know today what they will get and how the money will go into the State and local systems; is that right? Dr. Ivy. Yes, sir; and the facts upon which the factors of our formula are based are collected and have been collected by the Government officials of the Office of Education for many years. They are known to them and can be checked on.

Senator MORSE. Does the bill have the effect of giving a blanket increase of an equal sum to every teacher in the country?

Dr. Ivy. No, sir

Senator AIKEN. That is one of the changes since the bill was offered last year, Senator.

Dr. Ivy. The $200,000,000 is to be distributed to the respective States based upon average daily attendance. That is one of the best provisions we can have in any educational law anywhere. That $200,000,000, distributed on that basis, is to be used for teaching services. It is left to the State authorities to decide how that can most effectively assist in teaching services. A large part of it would probably go into

increasing teachers' salaries because of the 30 percent increase in cost of living which has not been met.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question that I would like to ask Dr. Ivy.

Dr. Ivy. All right, sir.

Senator AIKEN. This bill is a war measure.

It states on page 3:

This authorization shall terminate one year after the President shall have declared the emergency due to the war to have ceased, or one year after the Congress by concurrent resolution shall have so declared.

What I would like to ask, Dr. Ivy, is this: If this is a good bill as a war measure, when the States have more money than they have had before the war, or will have after the war, why is it not offered as a permanent bill instead of just as a war measure?

Dr. Ivy. The emergency feature applies to the $200,000,000. The equalization feature is a permanent part of the bill.

Senator AIKEN. The $100,000,000 is. I see that now, in the next paragraph.

Dr. Ivy. That is right. Consequently the emergency feature is intended to do just what you have pointed out, Senator, and the other part is to become permanent. There will always be a need for providing Federal funds to equalize educational opportunity between the States. And, gentlemen, although my hair is graying, I trust to see the day when Mississippi will be among the top States in wealth rather than the bottom and the need for help may be reversed under the equalization program at that time.

Senator MORSE. As far as the emergency fund to be used for the increase in salaries is concerned, if the State agencies wish to use it for that purpose, is there any safeguard in the bill which will prevent them from increasing salaries above the wage stabilization program of the Government, or, to be specific, above 15 percent?

Dr. Ivy. Well, Senator, the present average salary of a teacher in this country is $1,600. The salary in Government service is $2,500. We can divide this money in any State any way we want, and we still would not reach what the Government is already paying its own servants. Consequently, as far as I can see, there is no risk of teachers' salaries being run too high.

Senator MORSE. You mentioned the cost-of-living criterion.
Dr. Ivy. Yes.

Senator MORSE. As far as the cost-of-living criterion is concerned, I expect, under the stabilization program, 15 percent would be the limit. If you want to suggest-and I think you could rightly do sothat another criterion of substandard wages may be applied and make the adjustment on that ground, that is up to you, but a 30 percent increase in cost of living does not have much weight with me because I have heard that argument a good many times. I think it is only 15 percent, as far as cost of living is concerned. It seems to me you ought to emphasize there are places in which substandard salaries constitute an increased cost of living.

Dr. Ivy. The demonstration by Dr. Norton will show the areas in which those substandard salaries are very substantial.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Ivy.

All right, Dr. Norton.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN K. NORTON, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. You may state your name and position, Doctor. Dr. NORTON. My name is John K. Norton. I am professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Senator AIKEN. May I ask whether you are here representing the Teachers College of Columbia University or not?

Dr. NORTON. No; I am here wholly as a person who has conducted a rather extensive research that has factual information in it that I think would be useful to your committee.

Senator AIKEN. The reason I asked that question is because we get so many doctors and professors from colleges who always come in the name of the college in identifying themselves, and sometimes give the impression that they are representing the college.

Dr. NORTON. I state the name of the college merely to identify myself and in response to the question asked.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Doctor.

Dr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, some 3 years ago a group representing a number of educational organizations of this country got together to critically appraise our methods of collection of school statistics, and particularly those that had to do with the financing of education. The groups represented in that meeting were the American Council on Education, the United States Office of Education, the National Council of Chief State School Officers, the Southern States Conference on School Administration Problems, the National Education Association, and 48 State departments of education.

Whereas, we recognized that the U. S. Office of Education collected a large amount of exceedingly valuable statistical information concerning education, yet all of us, including the representative of the Office of Education, agreed that the data collected were not what we needed in toto. We needed data in different form. We needed types of information which take account of newer concepts and developments that have come into the semiscience of financing of education in the last 20 years. So we agreed to seek resources to attempt to make a national inventory of the financing of education in a form that had never been made before. We presented our proposition to the General Education Board and received a grant from them and proceeded to collect data from literally every one of the 115,000 school systems in this country; in fact, 17 items of information from each of those 115,000 school systems. The study is remarkable in that all of the 48 States, plus some of the Territories, and all of the school districts in the country are represented. In a sense, for the first time in the history of education in the United States, we have a complete accounting of our children and what is behind their education in terms of finance. The objective of the study, as a whole, was to collect figures to answer two questions: (1) What is the educational job to be done in each school district; how many children are to be educated, taking account of the conditions under which they are attending school; and (2) What expenditures are back of the education of the children in each of those 115,000 school districts?

Now, I will present the results of this investigation to you in summary form. In case any of you should like light evening reading, the findings are presented in great detail in two volumes of 400 pages.1 I will try to be as simple as possible in placing the principal findings and conclusions to you, and will be glad to answer any questions that you wish to ask for the purpose of bringing out details.

Chart 1 is a profile of the financing of education in the United States It is a picture of the inequality of educational support in the United States. All children in public schools are represented in this chart, 100 percent of them.

CHART 1

DISTRIBUTION OF CLASSROOM UNITS ACCORDING TO LEVELS OF EXPENDITURE

UNITED STATES

CURRENT EXPENDITURE PER CLASSROOM UNIT

$500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000

PERCENTAGE OF CLASSROOM UNITS

30

20

10

An Inventory of Public School Expenditures in the United States, by John K. Norton and Eugene S. Lawler. Report of the Cooperative Study of Public School Expenditures, American Council on Education, 744 Jackson Place NW., Washington, D. C., 1944, 1 vol., 409 pp., mimeographed, $3.

The vertical axis, from 0 to 100 percent, represents 100 percent of children in public schools. The horizontal axis represents amounts behind the education of these children. The amounts given on the horizontal axis represent sums behind a classroom unit which, for practical purposes, is the same as a typical classroom. We used expenditure per classroom instead of expenditure per child, because school systems are organized in terms of classrooms rather than in terms of individual pupils so far as cost is concerned. In some areas, such as cities, you can readily group 25 to 35 children per classroom, while in other areas, very sparsely settled, you may be able, even after transportation, to get not over 5, 10, or 15 children per classroom or school. However, you still have to maintain a classroom with a teacher in it, with books, and you have to heat that classroom. The classroom is a more meaningful unit of cost than the individual pupil. Accordingly the data of this study reveal how much money is behind a typical classroom; how much money is available to finance the salary of a teacher, the purchase of textbooks, the purchase of educational supplies, the heating of the room, the cleaning of the room, the overhead, and the administrative and supervisory expense of a classroom. Everything except costs of transporting children to school, and the original capital cost of the school building, is included in the expenditure figures of this study.2

We found a startling and shocking situation in our Nation, the world's greatest democracy. At the top of chart 1 we find some school systems in which amount of money expended per classroom per year is as much as $6,000-$6,000 back of each classroom group, to buy a generous and, we hope and, in fact, know, a very effective type of education.

Senator HILL. Doctor, that is $6,000 per year, is it not?

Dr. NORTON. $6,000 per year.

Senator HILL. Thank you.

Dr. NORTON. At the other extreme there are certain school districts in which there is literally less than $100 per year to buy all the things I mentioned; to maintain a classroom for a year. So at the extremes there is a ratio of 60 to 1 in educational provision, or in educational inequality, so far as finance determines the quality of education. We know from other sources that level of financial support has a very important relationship to quality of schooling provided.

Being more specific, at the top of chart 1 are 19,000 children in 790 classrooms, which cost $6,000 or more per classroom per year.

At the bottom of chart 1, reading the figures from the table there are 38,000 children in 1,674 classrooms that cost less than $100 per year. The other children and classroom units of the country are spread in between those extremes. One can tell the percentage at any particular level by reading the figures of the vertical and horizontal axes or by referring to the table accompanying chart 1. This relatively long vertical line near the top of the chart is New York City, which finances its schools at an average cost of $4,100 per year per classroom unit, as we define the term in this study. Since New York City enrolls nearly 1,000,000 children, it takes up a substantial part

of the chart.

For further information as to the exact meaning of the term "classroom unit," consult appendices of complete study, cited just above.