years. No State in the Union has made such great progress relatively during this period as has North Carolina in public education. For the year 1934-35 the salary of the average teacher in the State of North Carolina was $560; by 1943-44 the salary had been doubled and was $1,120. North Carolina has adopted a 9-month minimum school term -inadequately financed-for all children in the State. North Carolina has equalized the salaries of Negro and white teachers. More than 21,000 of the 23,500 public school teachers in North Carolina have 4 years of college or more, which is a very unusual standard for any State. North Carolina transports more children to consolidated schools than any other State in the Union. The advances made in every direction indicate the tremendous interest of the people of North Carolina in the improvement of their schools.

North Carolina has a State tax system which includes practically every conceivable form of tax, and the rates of nearly all of these taxes are among the highest in the Nation. For example, North Carolina levies a 3-percent general sales tax from which only a few basic food items are exempt; this is one of the highest consumption taxes in the country. North Carolina levies a 3-percent income tax on the lowest bracket of income taxpayers; there are only two or three States in the Nation which levy such high taxes on low incomes. North Carolina levies a 6-percent straight tax on the net income of corporations; very few States levy such heavy corporate income taxes. North Carolina levies a 6-percent gross-receipts tax on public utilities. These are but illustrations which show that the State of North Carolina levies much heavier taxes on its citizens and businesses than do many other States, especially those States which maintain the better schools.

North Carolina spends far more than 70 percent of all general-fund appropriations for public education. Thus the State not only levies heavy taxes on its people but it uses most of the proceeds of the general fund for education. By the action of its legislature, term after term in recent years, the State has demonstrated that its chief concern is public education, that it is willing to levy heavy taxes to support the schools, and that it is willing to spend far more money on education than on all other general-fund activities of the State.

Yet, despite this great interest, despite this tremendous effort, North Carolina ranks (1940) only forty-first among the States in the amount of money available per teaching unit in its public schools. This is but slightly more than one-half of the amount of money available for the average teaching unit. In 1940-41 North Carolina spent $43.86 per pupil for current school expenses. The average in the United States that year was $92.38 per pupil. New York spent $160.24 per pupil. In order to raise the $43.86 per pupil, North Carolina taxed her citizens more heavily than New York taxed her people to raise $160.24 per pupil, and more heavily than the average State taxed its citizens to raise $92.38 per pupil.

The reason why North Carolina education standards are so low despite the unusual interest and effort of the State is that the State has a low per capita income and a large number of children to educate. In 1943 North Carolina was next to the lowest State in the average wages paid to workers; the amount was less than $27 per week. The State is also low in average farm income per farm family. The 1942

per capita income for North Carolina was $523, which was almost exactly the same as the average for the Southeastern States, $522. The average per capita income for the entire United States was $852. The per capita income for California was $1,167.

Although North Carolina's income is only 1.6 percent of the United States total, the State has 3.4457 percent of the children of school age, 5 to 17 years, inclusive. North Carolina has 555 children of school age to each 1,000 adults, 20 to 64 years of age. California in comparison has 277 children for each 1,000 adults. Only 76.5 percent of the school-age children in North Carolina are in school; 7 out of every 100 children within the compulsory attendance age limits (7 to 14) are out of school.

The average annual salary of teachers in North Carolina last year was only $1,120; 34 percent of the teachers in the State are this year receiving less than $1,200.

Enrollment in the teachers' colleges of North Carolina has dropped alarmingly in the last few years. Last year the number of graduates from all the teachers' colleges in the State was only 62.2 percent of the number graduating in 1941. Only 400 college graduates in the whole State entered in the teaching profession in North Carolina this year, as compared with an estimated 4,000 who resigned from their teaching positions.

The case of North Carolina is typical. The Southern States are all putting forth much more effort to finance their schools than States in other sections. Nevertheless, the standards of education which they are able to maintain are very low.

The only solution is for the Federal Government to grant money to the States to help them extend their educational facilities. Only by this means can a child in North Carolina have the kind of educational opportunities which any American child should have as his birthright. I should like to say it is a lesson in the effectiveness of democracy to see the manner in which members of this committee have, with fairness, with patience, and with diligence listened to these people representing niany different angles of interest. It really renews one's faith and confidence in democracy to see just how you men go about this business of passing laws, finding out what laws to pass for the people of this country.

Senator ELLENDER. Thank you. Dr. Givens, I understand you desire to file a statement.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLARD E. GIVENS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Dr. GIVENS. My name is Willard E. Givens. I am executive secretary of the National Education Association.

I want first, if I may, to file just a brief statement dealing with the questions that Dr. McDonald just touched upon, as to how the emergency fund allotments under S. 181 is to have an equalizing effect. Senator ELLENDER. You may submit that statement. (The paper referred to is as follows:)

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

RESEARCH DIVISION,

Washington, D. C., February 1, 1945.

HOW THE EMERGENCY FUND ALLOTMENTS UNDER S. 181 WOULD HAVE AN

EQUALIZING EFFECT

Because the States with least wealth have relatively more children to educate, there is some redistribution of income when Federal grants to the States are based on the number of children. The emergency funds under S. 181 are to be apportioned on the basis of the number of children attending public schools.

In the table attached, the 12 States spending the most per child for education are compared with the 12 States spending the least per child for education. For these two groups of States two figures are shown (1) how much each State contributes to Federal internal-revenue receipts (totaling $22,287,469,721 in 1943) and (2) how much each State would receive under the Federal-aid emergency fund of $200,000,000. The 12 States spending the most for schools contribute 55.27 percent of the internal revenue; they would receive 34.34 percent of the emergency fund. Their percent of the emergency fund would only be about two-thirds as large as their percent of internal-revenue payments.

The 12 States spending least for schools, on the other hand, contribute 12.10 percent of the Federal revenue and would receive 25.93 percent of the emergency fund. Their percent of the emergency fund would be more than twice as high as their percent of internal-revenue payments.

Another way to make this clear is to see that the money the richer States would get back is just a little more than one-half of 1 percent of what they put into the Federal Treasury. The poorer States would get back nearly 2 percent of their internal-revenue payments. When we compare the exact percents the figure for the poor States is 3.4 times as large as the figure for the rich States. A question has been raised about Ohio's contribution to the Federal Treasury and its return from the emergency fund. Ohio is not one of the 12 States paying the most per child for education and hence is not included among the 12 in the table. It may be noted, however, that Ohio in 1943 paid $1,625,955,769 in internal-revenue receipts and that it would receive $9,967,800 from the emergency aid under S. 181. There would be a return of less than 1 percent 0.613 percent to be exact, a figure slightly higher than the average for the 12 States giving the most for education, but far less than the average of 1.92 percent for the 12 neediest States.

RAISING THE MONEY WHERE IT IS SPENDING IT WHERE THE CHILDREN ARE Internal-revenue receipts for 1943 and allotments from the emergency fund under S. 181, 42 States

Internal-revenue receipts for 1943 and allotments from the emergency fund under S. 181, 42 States-Continued

Source: Ranking of States based on U. S. Office of Education Statistics of State School Systems, 1939–40 and 1941-42, figures for 1941-42 on pp. 98-100. Internal-revenue receipts for 1943 from U. S. Treasury Depart ment, Bureau of Internal Revenue, as given in table 11 of tables and charts on Federal aid released by NEA Research Division, April 1944. Estimated allotments to States under Federal aid bill emergency fund from NEA leaflet entitled "War Threatens Our Children With Tragedy."

Dr. GIVENS. I want to submit at a later time, within a day or two, for the record some extracts from a manuscript written by Dr. Morris J. Thomas, superintendent of schools, of Rochester, Minn. The manuscript is entitled "Education's Challenge." One of its chapters contains statements from each of the Presidents of the United States from George Washington on down to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These statements relate to education or Federal aid to education made by our Nation's Presidents in their inaugural addresses, or in their messages to Congress on the State of the Union. You will be interested to know that 20 of our Presidents did make definite statements on education in these official addresses to Congress. I would like the privilege of filing some extracts from that chapter in the record of this hearing.

Senator ELLENDER. That privilege is accorded. (The extracts referred to are as follows:)

[Extracts from Education's Challenge]

MANUSCRIPT BY DR. MAURICE J. THOMAS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, ROCHESTER,

MINN.

Educators and laymen increasingly are aware of the serious inequalities existing among the educational systems of our 48 States.

During the past two decades this problem has been thoroughly discussed and various proposals made. At the present time it is being more widely and favorably discussed than ever before. It is clear that only by national action can inequalities of educational support be remedied. Many Members of Congress and most national leaders recognize the critical need.

It is only a question of time. When the issues are understood by the people speedy action by Congress will follow.

The inequalities of educational services become pressingly apparent during times of social and economic stress. During a war educational shortcomings are even more in evidence. While the problems are clearly indicated, their solution during times of crisis are delayed by the paramount nature of immediate needs. Education secures quick corrective action only if break-downs are complete. The nature of educational growth and support during the past 100 years departed from historical precedents and early educational thinking. It is not surprising, therefore, that our national leaders are confused today relative to the value of Federal aid and the amount and type of financial support which should be accorded to education. Local community concepts have been such, again based on the type of educational support and growth during the last 100 years, that national leaders now feel, in opposing Federal aid, they are supporting the American way, when, in reality, they are accepting and supporting departures from our early concepts and repudiating the educational philosophy of those who founded our Republic.

In examining this present-day issue of Federal support for education, attention must be directed to an analysis of historical precedents, our present critical need and the basic principles which could be served by national interest and financial support of our public schools. In what other area of governmental activity could the benefits of increased financial support be more effective in strengthening our economic, cultural, social, and democratic institutions?

Any program to improve the status and understanding of the American people will fortify and give meaning to our democratic structure of Government.

Nassau W. Senior says: "No country is so poor as to be unable to bear the expense of good schools. Strictly speaking, it is not an expense. The money so employed is much more than repaid by the superiority and diligence, in skill, in economy, in health-in short in all the qualities which fit men to produce and preserve wealth, of an educated over an uneducated community."

Many people, when first confronted with the idea of Federal aid to education, feel that it is a new proposal, and one that is entirely foreign to our concept of present-day educational organization. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our early American statesmen were conscious of the role of education in society. The early Presidents, beginning with George Washington, were positive in their support of free public education. Washington, in his first message to Congress, stated the following:

"Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of Government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionately essential. To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways-by convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of Government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousnesscherishing the first, avoiding the last-and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws."

In his last address to Congress in 1796, Washington again presented the need of Federal support of education when he proposed to Congress that it establish national educational institutions.

"The assembly to which I address myself is too enlightened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to national prosperity and reputation.

"True it is that our country, much to its honor, contains many seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest are too narrow to command the ablest professors in the different departments of liberal knowledge for the institutions contemplated, though they would be excellent auxiliaries.

"Amongst the motives to such an institution, the assimilation of the principles, opinions, and manners of our countrymen by the common education of a portion of our youth from every quarter well deserves attention. The more homogeneous our citizens can be made in these particulars the greater will be our prospect of a permanent union; and a primary object of such a national institution should be the education of our youth in the science of