« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
limit its use to the equalization of educational opportunity and to justifiable need. This would serve to take care of immediate needs due to wartime dislocations as well as long-time needs due to financial inequalities among the States. We are strongly opposed to the proposal to apportion this $200,000,000 on the basis of average school attendance. This would mean that the most populous areas with the greatest financial resources to finance education would receive the bulk of this $200,000,000, while the areas with the least financial resources would receive the least funds. It is the very antithesis of equalization. It would aggravate still further the inequalities of educational opportunity as between States. It would provide the largest grants to States which already have abundant financial resources to provide adequate educational facilities.
The amount of $200,000,000 also appears to be out of proportion to the $100,000,000 provided for the permanent program. In the postwar period, when the national income may be reduced, there will be more need for Federal aid to States to equalize educational opportunity than there is need to meet wartime needs when incomes are at record high levels. Yet, this proposed distribution of funds would provide $300,000,000 annually during the war emergency and then drop to $100,000,000 at the end of the first post war year.
We, therefore, urge that this special emergency fund be eliminated and a reasonable amount be added to the regular permanent fund, and that all be apportioned on the basis of financial need in relation to the number of children of school age.
3. The apportionment of funds to the States should be based upon the financial needs of the States in relation to the number of children to be educated, and grants should be limited to the equalization of educational opportunities.
The proposed formula in the bill does not conform to this principle. Instead, it appears to be constructed in such a manner as to give every State a very substantial amount of the Federal funds, regardless of the financial need of the States, and to give a disproportionate share of funds to States which need little, if any, Federal funds because of their large taxable resources which they have available to maintain adequate educational facilities unaiderl by the Federal Government.
Senator ELLENDER. You are referring to the $200,000,000 fund?
Mr. Ogg. As I understand it the bill provides for two indexes, (1) an index of financial need, which is taken to be the estimated total income payments, and the other index, I believe, is based upon the number of children of school age.
Now, the formula requires that one be related in ratio to the other, but in the case of the index of financial need you are only permitted to use 65 percent of your income payments and relate that to the number of children of school age. As I interpret that it would mean that the wealthier States would thereby receive a major percentage of the funds.
Senator ELLENDER. Not if it is based on the income. The greater the income the less they would need.
Mr. Ogg. Yes; but we only take a 65-percent weighting of that. I haven't seen the figures and I might be mistaken. If so, I would be glad to be corrected on it.
Senator ELLENDER. Have you a better formula to propose to the committee than has been worked out?
Mr. Ogg. I will come to our suggestion in a moment.
Mr. Ogg. For example, the formula only allows the States 65 percent credit for their relative financial needs as indicated by the total income payments, but gives 100 percent credit for the total school population. Clearly, this is not directed toward true equalization of education inequalities, as this would tend to reduce the apportionments to States which have the greatest needs for the funds, and increase the apportionments to the States which already have abundant financial resources with which to support adequate educational facilities.
We therefore respectfully insist that this formula be modified so as to provide for apportionment to the States strictly on the basis of financial need in relation to the number of children to be educated, and that grants be limited to the equalization of educational opportunities.
In other words, if we are going to have a formula our suggestion is that it be based on the index of financial need as determined by the amount of income payments in the State and let the chips fall where they will without this adjustment.
Senator ELLENDER. I was under the impression that the formula did that very thing.
Mr. OGG. Well, but you only give a 65 percent weighting, so to speak, to the financial ability as represented by the income payments. It would seem to be if the principle is sound that the funds are to be apportioned for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity on the basis of need, need both from the standpoint of the number of children to be educated and need from the standpoint of the inability of the State to finance adequate facilities, we should take those two factors as they are, first the number of children to be educated and second the lack of income in relation to other States, without adjusting the formula, so as to assure that every State will get a certain amount of money, or any proportion of the money, and let the chips fall where they will.
Senator ELLENDER. Well, of course, I would like to work out a formula that way, but, you know, we need quite a few votes in the Senate so as to pass the bill.
Mr. Ogg. That is a practical problem that you gentlemen, of course, have before you.
Senator ELLENDER. Yes. I am somewhat of a realist.
Mr. Ogg. But we believe that that principle is sound as a matter of fundamental policy in establishing this kind of legislation. On that point, Senator, I think this, that this same issue comes up all the time on all these Federal-aid measures, the highway building and all the other Federal grants-in-aid, but it seems to me that these heavily populated industrial States ought not to take a narrow, sectional view of this thing, because, as I indicated, it is a very great benefit to them if the rural areas and the rural States do a good job of educating these boys and girls. Nearly half of these boys go to the cities later after they have received their education. They will make a lot better citizens and make a better contribution to the urban community. I think they should take a broader view than to say, “Are we going to get some of this money?" when they don't really need it. Our contention is that they do not really need much, if any, of this money. The record
speaks for itself as to what they have done in the way of school facilities. If they are going to take the position that just because the Federal Government is going to have an appropriation they have got to have some of it, whether needed or not, well, I don't think that is a constructive attitude to take, to be frank about it.
Senator Hill. Mr. Ogg, as a representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation, you speak for the farmers of a great many States, do you not?
Mr. OgG. Yes, sir.
Mr. OgG. We have at present 45 State federations which are members of our organization.
Senator HILL. Some of your strongest bureaus, I believe, are in the larger, more wealthy States, like Illinois and Ohio?
Mr. OGG. Yes, sir. Our largest organization is in Illinois, which has something over 100,000 members. One of our_largest State bureaus is the New York State Farm Bureau with, I think, something like 60,000 members.
Senator Hill. What is your total membership?
Mr. Ogg. On last November 30 our total membership was approximately 825,000 paid memberships. That is on a family basis.
Senator AIKEN. That is families and not individuals
Mr. Ogg. Even if you only take those that are old enough to participate, say a man and his wife and two grown children, that is four. Multiply that by four and it would give you a conservative estimate of individuals old enough to have some part in the activities of the organization.
Senator AIKEN. There really is probably more than an average of four people in each family.
Mr. OGG. Yes; the total number in the family probably would be around five, depending on the area.
Senator ELLENDER. Are there any other questions?
Senator FULBRIGHT. Did you suggest that that 65 percent should be eliminated altogether or did you recommend some other procedure?
Mr. Ogg. We suggested a principle. If that formula is kept I believe it should be eliminated. We are not saying to you gentlemen that that formula is perfect even if you eliminate the 65 percent. You may be able to find a better formula. All we are saying is that we would like to see this money distributed on the basis of this principle, namely, first, the number of children to be educated; and second, the relative inability, we might say, of the States to provide adequate facilities.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you have any suggestions as to a better method of arriving at their ability to educate than per capita income.
Mr. OGG. No, sir. This [referring to the main statement] has total income, I believe. If you took it on a per capita basis that might be a little fairer still.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Doesn't this amount to about that, because you have to take the number of children?
Mr. OGG. If you eliminate the 65-percent provision, yes; it would be enough—well, it wouldn't either because in some areas families are larger than in other areas. You have more children in relation to total population in some areas than others.
Senator FULBRIGHT. That would show up in the first one. Mr. Ogg. But it wouldn't come out, probably, the same as an overall per capita income. I don't know how the figures would come out on a comparative basis. Offhand, it would seem to me that a per capita income would be a more equitable measure of ability to support education. But, as I say, we are not wedded to any particular formula. We are trying to recommend and are urging a fundamental principle. We think that is very important in embarking on a new field. If we are going to establish a new permanent system of Federal grants-in-aid we feel it is vitally important to get it started on a sound basis, to be fair to all States. And, again, I want to say that I don't want to be unfair to the heavily populated States, and if some more equitable formula can be found than this, one that would conform to the principle that we have suggested, I am sure our people would not be wedded to any particular formula. It is a fundamental principle we are concerned about. In other words, our people feel strongly that these Federal grants ought to be limited to equalization of educational opportunity. We don't want to give a free ride to any State, large or small, rich or poor. If they can pay their own bill they ought to do it.
Senator Hill. You realize that the emergency fund, the $200,000,000, would pass out at the end of the war?
Mr. Ogg. Yes, sir.
Senator Hill. Have you any suggestion to make, if for any reason we wouldn't follow through on the $200,000,000 emergency fund, have you any recommendation as to what amount you would make the equalization fund
Mr. Ogg. No; I am not prepared at this time. We would rather leave that to your judgment. We think it should be an amount, a reasonable amount, that could be justified in the light of matters on a long-time basis.
Senator ELLENDER. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. HOWARD A. DAWSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
RURAL SERVICE, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Senator ELLENDER. State your name and whom you represent, please.
Dr. Dawson. I am Howard A. Dawson, the Director of the Division of Rural Service of the National Education Association.
The principal thing I would like to do in my statement is to explain, at least, the chief provision of this bill, and a part of that explanation will concern the subject you have just had under discussion with Mr. Ogg.
I would like to call the attention of the committee to the very first section of the bill, which brings into clear relief the question of Federal control of education on the one hand and preservation of State autonomy in the administration of education on the other hand. It is important that the very first section of this bill should deal with that subject because all of you who have kept up with the debates on this subject over the last several years know that the question of whether the Federal Government would inevitably control the administration of schools if it spends any money for them, is a question which has apparently kept many people and legislative bodies from supporting the bill.
The first section of this bill is an exact copy of the amendment which was offered in October 1943 when S. 637 was before the Senate by Senator Maybank, of South Carolina, and Senator McClellan, of Arkansas, as a substitute for the section 1 which was included in the original bill.
Both of the Senators agreed that this section undertakes to do the same thing that the original section did, but they thought the language was stronger, and as a result their amendment was unanimously accepted by the Senate, and we have accepted it. However, there is one thing in connection with the offering of this amendment that I would like to see go into the record because should the pending bill become enacted at some time what goes into this record may be of assistance to the Senate or to the judicial bodies that might be interpreting what the Senate meant to do when it enacted the bill.
Senator Maybank had read into the record one of the rules of the Senate: It is paragraph 4 of rule 16, which is as follows [reading]:
No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in this bill be received, nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received which does not directly relate thereto.
All questions of relevancy of amendment under this rule when raised shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate.
Any amendment to the general appropriation bill may be laid on the table without prejudice to the bill.
Quotation from Jefferson's Manual, section 35.
Now, the interpretation placed by Senator Maybank and Senator McClellan, and no Senator disputed it in the debates, was that any appropriation which Congress might make or the Senate might offer under the authorization of this bill which contained an element of control specifically forbidden in section 1 would not be germane to the legislation and therefore would be out of order, and that the only way to inject control into the bill would be to amend the original authorization. We accept that interpretation, and again I say that it was appar
I ently unanimously accepted in the Senate since nobody disputed it. I say that again because in future interpretations, any attempt to throw controls, that might be forbidden in this legislation, into an appropriation act, might be ruled out, and I hope that the report of the committee will show that they so intended when they report the bill out, which would certainly be a safeguard toward maintaining State autonomy in the control of education.
Now, one or two comments on this matter of Federal control of education. It is frequently stated that if the Federal Government spends money for education Federal control will inevitably follow. Some opponents of Federal aid have gone so far as to say that school boards would have to send committees to Washington to find out whether they could fire or hire teachers or not. That is clearly im