Amount of school revenue that would have been available per person, 5–7 years, if pending Federal aid bill had been in effect in 1941–42-Continued Source: Figures in column 2 based upon preliminary data for 1941-42 from the U. S. Office of Education. Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Marston, will you come forward and give us your name and whom you represent, please? STATEMENT OF R. B. MARSTON, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AND FEDERAL RELATIONS DIVISION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Mr. MARSTON. My name is R. B. Marston. I am the director of the legislative and Federal relations division of the National Education Association. Senator ELLENDER. Have you a prepared statement? Mr. MARSTON. Yes, sir. I would like to say that I had planned to address all of my remarks to the subject of Federal control in relation to the pending bill, but my able colleague, Dr. Howard Dawson, has done such a remarkably fine job that I feel I can omit most of my remarks on this topic, and I would like to read this brief statement that I have here on the subject of the pending legislation and Federal control in relation to it. Senator ELLENDER. Very well; proceed, sir. Mr. MARSTON. S. 181, the pending bill, provides Federal aid to education without delegating to the Federal Government the control of public education. It leaves State sovereignty over education unimpaired. In order to establish this point it is desirable to distinguish between fiscal controls on the one hand, and educational controls on the other. The two are for the most part separable and are subject to relatively easy identification. Examples of fiscal control in S. 181 include those provisions which set forth the amounts of money appropriated; how these amounts shall be apportioned to the States; when the appropriation under section 2 (a) shall terminate; how amounts allotted under the act shall be certified; the limitations fixed on expenditures for administration of the act; method to be observed in transferring funds from the United States Treasury to the several States and Territories; audits, reports, and the like. These are, for purposes of convenience, referred to as fiscal controls. The inclusion of provisions on fiscal arrangements is inescapable. They are logical and desirable. Certainly every person will agree to the principle of accurate accounting for the expenditure of public funds. Distinguished from fiscal controls are other controls which are clearly educational in nature. Included among educational controls, to mention but a few examples, are the following: ((1) Selection of teachers, supervisors, school superintendents, and other school employees. (2) Determination of both general and specific objectives of the schools. (3) Determination of the subjects and courses in the curriculum. (4) Formulation and adoption of methods of instruction. (5) Selection of textbooks and other instructional materials. (6) Fixing the length of school day, school month, and school year. (7) Determination of specifications to govern school libraries, science laboratories, shops, classrooms. (8) Classification of teachers and other school employees for salary purposes. (9) Determination and approval of standards for teacher certification. (10) Inspection and supervision of schools for purposes of checking and improving the character of educational opportunity for youth. There can be no doubt that the agency of government-whether Federal or State-that possesses the 10 foregoing educational, as distinguished from fiscal, controls over public education will be the agency that has the power to determine the character of public education. At the present time, these controls over education are lodged with State governments. This arrangement is traditional. It is a satisfactory arrangement. It should be continued. This is precisely what S. 181 guarantees. There is not a single provision in the pending bill that in the slightest degree impairs the existing authority of the States and localities to select necessary personnel for administration, instruction, and maintenance services; to determine what shall be taught and how it shall be taught; to fix the objectives of the schools; or to do any of the other things that are educational in nature. Furthermore, there is not a single provision in the pending bill which in any degree or manner whatever limits or restricts the States or their political subdivisions in building better schools. No ceiling on improvements in the educational programs operated by the States is in any sense implied or imposed by the pending legislation. Not only is S. 181 free of any grants of educational control to the Federal Government at the expense of State and local agencies, but the bill, in its initial provisions, prohibits Federal control over the educational aspects of our public schools. Beginning on page 1, line 5, and ending with line 14, page 2, we find a definitely clear and unmistakable denial to the Federal Government of any and all educational controls now lodged with State governments. In this respect S. 181 is unique in the long history of Federal-aidto-education legislation. It plays doubly safe in protecting State control over our schools. It does this first of all by refusing to subtract in any degree whatever from the States their existing educational controls. This, in itself is, or should be, an adequate safeguard for State control. As though it were not, however, the bill in its earliest provisions proceeds to double-lock the door against Federal control by denying in clear and undebatable language the right of any Federal "department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States" to exercise any kind of "direction, supervision, or control over the administration, the personnel, the curriculum, the instruction, the methods of instruction, or the materials of instruction." * * * Attention is also invited to the fact that the pending bill lodges no discretionary authority whatever with any Federal department, agency, officer, or other employee of the United States. S. 181 is clearcut and precise in all these respects. No new agency or bureau is created. No new administrative machinery is called for. No new jobs are authorized. Only those things can be done that are specifically authorized in the bill as far as the Federal Government is concerned. No educational controls are delegated to the Federal Government and it is correct to say that all fiscal controls are so arranged as to avoid conflict with the States in their exercise of controls over the educational process. It is to be doubted whether any Federal-aid-to-education bill in the history of our country has ever been drawn with equal or greater regard and respect for the rights of the States to control public education. In closing the doors of State control to Federal encroachment, S. 181 follows in the long-established tradition of Federal aid to the States and localities for school support without Federal invasion of the power of the States to direct their own school programs. It is a fact that has too frequently been overlooked, or forgotten, that the Congress of the United States has, in its many years of service, enacted numerous Federal-aid-to-education bills. This aid has been extended in the form of land grants, outright money grants, and subventions-i. e., money grants that are annually recurring. The extent of these grants has been tremendous. The amount of land the Federal Government granted to the States for educational purposes since 1802 is equivalent in area to 25 States the size of Connecticut or to 10 States the size of Maryland. One authority in this field, placing a value of $10 per acre on land grants for education, estimates the total value of such grants to have been in excess of $1,275,000,000. While the exact total amount of money grants by the Federal Government for school support to the States is not known, it is believed to be a conservative figure when such grants are estimated in excess of $1,000,000,000. For example, for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1942, Federal grants, regular and recurring, to the States and Territories amounted to $55,711,217. Of this amount $5,030,000 was granted for the more complete endowment and support of land-grant colleges; $6,926,207 for agricultural experiment stations; $18,956,918 for cooperative agricultural extension service; $21,768,122 for vocational education below college grade, and $3,030,000 for vocational rehabilitation. These Federal funds were allotted to the States under authority contained in numerous acts of the Congress of the United States. It is, it seems to me, of far more than usual significance that at this moment, with the pending bill under consideration, Federal funds are being expended to assist the States in the operation of their schools, although in distressingly small and inadequate amounts. The chief pertinent fact in this connection is that despite these extensive Federal investments in public education the States have retained control over the educational programs which they are charged to administer. There can, for example, be found in no States of the Nation, as far as I have been able to discover, any public-school system in which the local school superintendent, the school principals, the classroom teachers, and other board of education employees are chosen by a Federal agency; where teachers are certificated by other than a State or local board or commission or department; where the school curriculum is mandated by the Federal Government; where textbooks and instructional materials are forced upon the States whether or not the States want them; where any authority, other than State authority, fixes both general and specific objectives for the schools. In its wisdom-and for this fact all citizens should be gratefulthe Congress has not, over the past century and a half, conditioned its assistance to the States in support of education upon the principle of State surrender of sovereignty in the management of the public schools. What Congress has done in the past, Congress, can, if it so decides, do again. The power of this great lawmaking body is of such exten sive character that the Congress can enact whatever kind of Federalaid-to-education bill it may desire. It can enact a bill in keeping with our traditions—and the pending bill, I wish to repeat, qualifies in this respect. S. 181 provides Federal aid for schools without accompanying Federal control over the educational programs of the States. Or, the Congress can enact a bill which carries, with the assistance the Federal Government extends, some degree of Federal control over education. Or, it can enact a bill which sets up complete federalization of the public schools of this Nation. The recommendation here advanced for consideration is that legislation of the first type-Federal aid without Federal control of the educative process and materials-be enacted. This is in fact the great American tradition in the field of Federal participation in helping finance public education. The pending legislation respects this tradition and conforms to all of its important requirements. It is finally to be noted that no State in the Nation is required to qualify for the benefits provided by the pending legislation. Each State will determine for itself whether it wishes to share such benefits or pass them by. There is not a single provision in the bill which forces a State to qualify. In this respect the bill does nothing more than set up an opportunity for the States to provide a better educational opportunity for the children within their borders. The States are perfectly free to accept or to reject that opportunity. In any event, however, one thing is certain; there is not a State in the Nation that can, according to the provisions of the bill as it now stands, refuse to avail itself of the benefits of the bill on the charge such benefits propose or threaten to remove the control of public education from the jurisdiction of the State. Senator ELLENDER. Any questions? Senator ELLENDER. Step forward, please, Colonel. I understand that the chairman invited you to make a statement. Colonel OWENS. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Very well, proceed, Colonel. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. ROBERT H. OWENS, EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM Colonel OWENS. My name is Lt. Col. Robert H. Owens. My assignment is that of Educational Consultant, national headquarters, Selective Service System. Senator HILL. Colonel, will you state what your duties and functions are with the Selective Service System? Colonel OWENS. Yes, sir. If I may, I will quote from a work sheet that I had to prepare last summer for one of the congressional committees. |