Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

opposed to it, as to the responsibility of the Federal Government. Have you any views as to why there should be responsibility in the Federal Government?

Mr. Eby. I left out some of the arguments on the basis of the fact that wealth is concentrated, as described yesterday, in certain areas of this country, and I left out all these figures. Our belief, in a simple sentence, is that you should educate where the children are.

Senator CHAVEZ. Of course, some of the opponents will possibly disagree and say: "Should New York pay for educating children in some other State?” I want your views as to why the Federal Government should contribute.

Mr. Eby. New York is one situation; Mississippi and Alabama is another situation. I mean the very basic facts are, again as described yesterday, that it is impossible for certain of the States, even if they were taxed to their fullest capacity, to do this job.

Senator CHAVEZ. Do you feel that the Federal Government as such has the responsibility, together with the States, to provide education for the children?

Mr. Eby. Certainly. I believe every youngster in America should have as nearly equal an opportunity as is humanly possible.

Senator CHAVEZ. That is basic, and I believe in that, too, but I will restate my question. The opposition always come back to us and say: “Now, why does not the State do it?” The question I would like to develop at this hearing is: Have you some concrete evidence to the effect that there is a responsibility in the Federal Government to help educate the children of the country!

Mr. Eby. Yes. That is why, I will say, frankly, I used pretty much the argument of mobility. I tried to develop the fact that a citizen who happens to be born in one State becomes a citizen of the United States by the very nature of this mobility, not only in time of war but, as I tried to describe, in time of peace there is mobility from one State to another. Consequently, that being the case and also being the case from a sociological point of view, our cities could not survive without that mobility. I remember when I was executive secretary of the Chicago Teachers Union we became very much interested in this problem, because our normal birth rate was getting less and less.

From 1930 to 1933 the Chicago school population dropped 32,000. It was dropping at the rate of 10,000 a year. Chicago, as a city,

.

, could not survive on the basis of that birth rate. If it would not be for people coming from the outside, it could not survive. These children that we export to the cities keep our cities alive; they are a resource. Senator CHAVEZ. Let us get to the present situation, the World

War.

Mr. Eby. Yes.
Senator CHAVEZ. Of necessity the country needs manpower.
Mr. EBY. That is right.

Senator Chavez. It also needs the personnel for the Army and Navy.

Mr. Eby. That is right.

Senator CHAVEZ. Do you not feel it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, which determines whether or not they should

go to work or be inducted into the armed forces, to prepare that manpower for its best utilization by the country as a whole, and even to make sacrifices, if necessary?

Mr. Ebr. Certainly. I am not sure of this figure, but somewhere I read that the Federal Government spends something like $349 on every person in the armed services that they must make literate before they can use them. That cost is an added burden on this whole problem of national defense. If this education had taken place at a proper time, we would not have had the problem of developing literacy, and we would not have had this added expense as people are drafted.

Senator CHAVEZ. I have seen figures throughout the war period wherein they say that thousands and thousands of American boys, patriotic boys anxious to do their duty, had to be turned down because they did not have the equivalent of even a third-grade education. Do you believe there is some responsibility in that respect on the part of the Federal Government ?

Mr. Eby. That is correct. I used the figure of 750,000 that were turned down. It would be more than that.

Senator AIKEN. Is not one of the principal reasons, if not the principal reason, speaking in behalf of Federal aid to education, due to the fact that the wealth of this country is created in all the States, but some gravitates to a few States? The financial interests are located in a few States of the country, and unless there is some means provided for redistributing that wealth for the purposes of education, as we do for highways, in the States where the wealth was created, that those States soon find themselves at a very grievous disadvantage as compared to the States where the money becomes concentrated? I almost said consecrated. Sometimes I believe it is almost "consecrated.”

Senator CHAVEZ, Senator Aiken, I agree with your statement, but I still know that passing this bill is going to be a practical proposition.

Mr. Eby. That is right.

Senator CHAVEZ. We will have to show them that there is some responsibility on the part of the Federal Government. I would like for us to make as fine a showing as we possibly can, demonstrating that there is a responsibility on the part of the Federal Government. I am satisfied in my own mind, but I am only 1 of 96. There are a few other Senators who also vote.

Mr. Eby. That is right. I, of course, could give out of my experience, many, many reasons which I did not mention here. I think Federal aid to education is extremely important.

I remember visiting many Chicago classrooms with boys and girls who had migrated from the South. I went out with the teachers, and I saw the terrible adjustment that teachers in these classrooms had to go through. You see Chicago youngsters who are 8 or 9 years of age, and then you would see in these same classrooms boys and girls of 15, 16, and 17 years of age, in the second- and third-grade level.

Incidentally, a certain social deterioration is developed by the very nature of the educational problem. I am one who thinks it is an educational tragedy to mix age groups. Apropos of that, you may have seen the picture of the returning veteran in some of the papers, the veteran who had gone back to school at a lower age level and was reassigned. I do not believe in that type of education.

The social effect of these migrants coming into an established school center is very depressing. I think that children are born citizens of the United States and not just citizens of the State of their birth. They should be given these educational opportunities within the age levels that they are given to other children.

Even to project this whole matter a little further as it relates to educational opportunity, I remember when the great wave of migration came into Chicago from the South that our delinquency rate went up for a while. Then we made this very interesting discovery which I have always been interested in. We found that when we got free lunches, that when the children were given free lunches, our delinquency rate went down 40 or 50 percent, and we found a positive correlation between age levels, lunches, and all of these other things which give children an equal chance. I am for giving them all the same chance.

Senator CHAVEZ, You are getting back to the equality of opportunity.

Mr. Eby. Absolutely.

Senator CHAVEZ. I think everybody believes in that, but I still would like to have you emphasize a little further the Federal Government's responsibility.

Mr. Eby. In my testimony, which is in the record, I have gone into the question of ability of the respective States, and I did not want to repeat it.

Senator CHAVEZ. Is it your opinion that the responsibility of the Federal Government is based on the inability of the individual States to provide that equality of opportunity?

Mr. Eby. They cannot, and the Federal Government must. In other words, it must tax the wealth on a Federal basis and reallocate it to these States, to make it possible for these States to do the educational job. I do not think there is any way in the world that it can be done unless it is done that way. As we all know, if you tax wealth to the limit in the poor States you still cannot do the job. I think there is no other solution to the problem. I could repeat the reasons why I think so. One of the reasons, as I said, is mobility, and the fact that American children are born citizens of the whole country. Many of our problems today are fundamentally national in scope. I think our solutions would have to be national.

Of course, we in the CIO are somewhat in the position of the man going to see the elephant. We argue from our point of view. We believe, very frankly, that we cannot maintain our organization unless we can do something about the assimilation and the social attitude of some of our members. We cannot risk membership. From the viewpoint of our membership, it is dependent, in this complex society, on the education of our members. I am interested in terms of the social attitude of the people who make up the CIO membership.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That would apply to any member of society, not only the CIO membership, would it not?

Mr. Éby. Certainly. The reason I mentioned the CIO is the accident of testimony. I have taught in public schools from the eighth

1

a

grade to the highest level, and all along I was impressed by the responsibility of a democratic society. I remember at Michigan, when I was teaching at Ann Arbor, a certain rebellion that came to my mind when I saw youngsters coming to school because they happened to be born right, to be born in the right families, and other people who could not go to school because of the accident of birth.

Senator CHAVEZ. There is nothing new about that. Education has been talked about since the beginning of our Republic.

Mr. Eby. That is right. What was it Jefferson wrote to his friend about the education of the citizenry? Sure, it is basic. I was glad that Dr. Norton mentioned it yesterday. One thing he did not mention, that impressed me about Japanese education, was the number of dental clinics. I remember in Tokyo and different places being asked: “How many children did you feed cod-liver oil in Ann Arbor ?" That was a statistical question that never came to my mind.

I used to think of such things in the early days, when we thought there was a correlation between physical weakness and mental ability. We have gotten past all that. We know there is a positive correlation between physical well-being and mental development.

This whole thing goes back, from our point of view, in a free society to educational opportunity, home opportunity, job opportunity. To eliminate that vicious circle of poor wages and poor education, we believe here is one of the places where you start moving in a better direction.

Senator DÓNNELL. Mr. Eby.
Mr. EBY. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. Your argument, as I understand, in large part can be reduced to the matter of equalization of opportunity, is that right?

Mr. Eby. Yes; I am impressed by that, and also by the fact there is a national emergency where we have teachers leaving schools due to the lack of adequate payment.

Senator DONNELL. That leads me to this question: This bill as I understand it proposes two divisions of authority to appropriate: (1) $200,000,000, which has reference to the emergency to which you refer

Mr. Eby. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. °(2) $100,000,000, for the purpose of equalization.

Mr. Eby. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. Do you take the view that a State which is amply able to support its teachers should, nevertheless, receive, upon application to the Federal Government assistance from the Federal Government without reference to the need of the State itself?

Mr. Eby. I mean in terms of this emergency, as I see it, there are two problems. One problem, first, is the equalization of opportunity, and the other is the increased burdens placed on quite a few of the States because of this inmigration. A great number of people have moved into States such as California and some others, and that has increased their burden. You have a dual problem, but basically what we are interested in is the equalization approach. I mean everything that moves in this direction is a benefit. We think this is the beginning, moving in the direction of equalization of educational opportunity.

Senator DONNELL. Do I correctly understand you to say that your argument is primarily addressed to the matter of appropriation of $100,000,000, because of the equalization feature?

Mr. Eby. The honest answer is that it is addressed to both, but with this $100,000,000 for the emergency we are making a beginning. We have to anticipate projecting it into the future so that equal opportunity of all youngsters is advanced. In other words, I do not think that $100,000,000 is enough to do the job, but it is a beginning, it is the acceptance of the philosophy of contributing to equal opportunity of education on the basis of Federal action, and that is what I would probably emphasize most.

Senator DONNELL. Coming back to the question again that I asked you a few minutes ago, do you favor the grant by the Federal Government to all States regardless of their financial needs?

Mr. Eby. Yes; on the basis of the provisions of the bill, I would favor the present bill, S. 181, and hope it would pass, and then as time ,

, progressed we would iron out some of the difficulties and move on toward a greater degree of equalization. The emergency features might recede in the future.

Senator DONNELL. That is, you would favor an appropriation by the Federal Government to the State of New York just as much as you would to the State of Mississippi, is that right?

Mr. Eby. No, no.

Senator DONNELL. As I understand it, this $200,000,000 in the bill is to be distributed without reference to the needs of the State, solely on the basis of the daily school attendance in the States. Do you favor : the distribution of the $200,000,000 based on the daily attendance in the States as contradistinguished from the basis of need?

Mr. Eby. I would say part of my answer is a sort of a pragmatic one. It is this: On the basis of the appropriation for the States I am not sure you can get the bill passed without that provision.

Senator DONNELL. Is not that really the basis of your approval of this $200,000,000 feature of the bill ?

Mr. Eby. I have explained many times-
Senator DONNELL (interposing). Is that right, Mr. Eby?

Mr. Eby. I should say that is about right. I attended the White House Conference of the President on Federal Aid to Education on the basis of need. In over 15 or 20 years' experience I have learned something about how many legislatures work. You could not get a perfect solution. What I mean is that this is the beginning of a solution. Thi sbeginning excites me, because it moves toward the alleviation of the underprivileged, toward giving the teachers in the South and others a chance. If you notice my plea, it is based on a very deep equalization of social opportunity. Senator MORSE. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. CHAIRMAN. Yes, certainly.

Senator MORSE. Do I understand you to imply that there are States that really do not need their share of this appropriation ?

Mr. Eby. No, no; I do not think there are states that do not need it. You heard the figures yesterday on New York. There are States where the solution of these basic problems is infinitely easier than in other States. Take Illinois, the State I know best. The situation

I 73384-45-pt. 18

1

[ocr errors]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »