« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
penters or machinists or any other union in the American Federation of Labor.
Senator DONNELL. You mentioned this morning under the provisions of one of these sections 75 percent of the funds provided, I believe, in title II, shall go to teachers for payment of salaries. That is correct, is it not?
Mr. GOOGE. Yes, sir.
Senator DONNELL. You made a rather emphatic point that that was a very great advantage, in your judgment, of this bill. Is that correct?
Mr. Googe. Yes. It earmarks that much of the funds to supplement teachers' salaries and pay additional teachers in the public schools.
Senator DONNELL. May I ask you this—and I hope you do not take offense at this; we are entitled to find out your thought on it, however-if you succeed in securing the passage of this bill, which guarantees 75 percent of this $300,000,000 a year to go to teachers for salaries, does that fact, in your judgment, tend to make the teachers more favorable toward the American Federation of Labor than if that increase in their salaries had not occurred, and would it also tend for more persons to join this affiliate, the American Federation of Teachers, on the argument that the American Federation of Teachers had extended that benefit, or extended considerable benefit, to your teachers? Have those thoughts at all entered into the preparation of this provision that at least 75 percent of the $300,000,000 must go the teachers for payment of salaries?
Mr. Googe. Senator, I think the testimony here before the committee answers that question very effectively. If political expediency were the purpose, if it had one iota of influence on the action of the American Federation of Labor, we would be in here revising this bill to meet the wishes of this Commission. But if you ask if teachers, knowing that the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Labor alone fought for the protection of the rights of the classroom teacher, should knowing this, join the A. F. of L., the answer is that if they are sane and wise that's what they will do. But seeking aid for all children had no political angle, I can assure you.
Senator DONNELL. Then that did not enter into it?
Mr. Googe. It had no bearing on it whatsoever. It is the need of the child, our workingmen's children, that is the purpose of the bill, and it is the major interest that the American Federation of Labor has. But we shall protect the teacher's interests.
Senator CHAVEZ. At the same time, you would like to have the teachers, whether they are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or not, or in an individual capacity, get a living wage?
Mr. Gooce. Yes. I may add this, too—that where the teachers are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, in the years past we have succeeded, by pressure of the labor movement in the local community, to increase the teachers' salaries tremendously. In Atlanta, Ga., for two decades all the public school teachers have been members of the American Federation of Labor, active in our central body, and we have a much higher salary standard there than in any other section of the State, where the teachers are not in the union.
Senator DONNELL. Mr. Googe, bearing in mind your mentioning of the fact that Dr. Reeves is much more familiar with the details of the bill, and also the very compelling fact that there are two bells that have just rung for us to appear on the Senate floor, I will adjourn any further questioning and ask Dr. Reeves those questions.
Mr. GOOGE. Thank you, Senator; I am sure he will be glad to supply the information.
Senator Walsh. We will meet again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morn
(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the committee recessed to 10 a. m., of the following day, Friday, April 13, 1945.)
FEDERAL AID FOR EDUCATION
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1945
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in room 424-B, Senate Office Building, Senator Elbert D. Thomas presiding.
Present: Senators Thomas, Ellender, Johnston, Taft, Morse, Aiken, Smith, and Donnell.
Senator THOMAS. Dr. Reeves, will you state what you want to appear in the record about yourself, please?
STATEMENT OF DR. FLOYD W. REEVES—Resumed
Dr. REEVES. I am Floyd W. Reeves. I am professor of administration and director of the rural education project of the University of Chicago; and, as I testified earlier, I am appearing here for the Commission on Educational Reconstruction of the American Federation of Teachers, and I am representing that commission in expressing its attitude on S. 717. I am, however, serving in a dual capacity, in that I am also assisting the American Federation of Labor in connection with the technical interpretation of the provisions of this bill.
I consider it an honor that the American Federation of Labor, knowing in advance that there is one provision in title II of the bill with which our commission and I do not agree, still had enough confidence in me to ask me to assist before this committee in the technical interpretation of the bill. In this rather difficult position I shall make every effort to do an honest job.
Both the American Youth Commission and President Roosevelt's Advisory Committee on Education recommended Federal aid for services to children of the type included under title III of this bill. Both recommended not only that special provision be made for such services, but also that special provision be made for a student-aid program of the type set forth in title IV. I should like to quote a few brief extracts from the report of the President's Advisory Committee on Education relative to special services of the type included in title III.
After presenting a list of 12 activities and services that should be recognized as properly within the scope of elementary and secondary schools, the President's Advisory Committee said:
the last three items of this list require some special comment, since the Committee believes that if funds are used for these purposes they should receive special attention, and States should be permitted to allocate funds sep arately for them in the joint plans.
The last three items referred to are provision for books and other reading and instructional materials; the transportation of pupils; and scholarships.
The President's Advisory Committee on Education continued its report as follows:
In providing educational opportunity, liberal supply of books and other reading materials, including textbooks if textbooks are used, is a matter of greatest importance. The practice with respect to reading materials now varies greatly both among and within States. Some States purchase textbooks on a State-wide basis; others require local school jurisdictions to purchase and supp.y textbooks. Almost half the States, however, merely permit local jurisdictions to purchase textbooks and other reading materials, and many local units do not do so to any significant extent.
Senator THOMAS. May we make a generalization and say that so far as the supervision of education in the whole country is concerned, that we are practically on State control of education so far as public education is concerned ?
Dr. REEVES. That is correct, Senator.
Senator THOMAS. And the local units have now nearly broken down from one end of the country to the other?
Dr. REEVES. I will have to modify my answer just a little. It is true that many of the old local units have broken down to the point where they cannot do the job. It is also true that States have taken over more responsibility directly than they had some years ago, but it is still true that in many States the States have not taken over enough responsibility in supplementing what the local units are doing to provide a satisfactory educational program.
Have I answered your question?
Senator Thomas. Yes. There is one more point that I would like to know about, and I just want a generalization so that we can see where we are going in this development. In State-controlled education practically every function from the providing of the textbooks to the content of the textbook is supervised by the State, is it?
Dr. REEVES. That is not universally true, although it is true in some States.
Senator JOHNSON. You will find, especially in large school districts, that the books are purchased for the children?
Dr. REEVES. That is true in some cases, but there are thousands of districts in the United States for which the State has not purchased schoolbooks, and the children have to purchase their own.
Senator DONNELL. In general, Dr. Reeves, who is it that determines which books shall be purchased in such instances as you refer to in which the children purchase their own books—the State authority or local authority?
Dr. REEVES. The practice is not uniform. Often the State provides lists from which local authorities or counties may select the books.
Continuing, from the report of the President's Advisory Committee on Education:
Failure to provide suitable reading materials in the schools results in a substantial denial of educational opportunity in the case of many children from homes of low income. The schools in low-income areas sometimes fail to offer even the most meager educational opportunities primarily because reading materials are not provided and a majority of the children do not have them.
That is the end of the quotation from the President's Advisory Committee report.
The President's Advisory Committee then stated that funds for services to children, such as the provision of reading materials, transportation, and scholarships, should be allocated separately from funds available for teachers' salaries and other instructional expenditures. It recommended that the Federal Government be given no control over the selection of reading materials and that the departments of education in the several States have only such control as may be given them by State legislation.
The committee pointed out that many services should be generally available to children regardless of whether they are enrolled in public or in private schools. It recommended that Federal funds allocated for reading materials, transportation, and scholarships and for health and welfare services be made available, so far as Federal legislation is concerned, for the benefit of pupils in both public and nonpublic schools. In this connection the committee stated that, the conditions under which health and welfare services and aid for reading materials, transportation, and scholarships may be made available for pupils in privately controlled schools should be determined by the States, or by the local school jurisdictions receiving the grants if the States so determine.
This bill, in title I, section 7 (d), on page 12, includes the requirement that only those schools shall receive aid that comply with the minimum educational requirements of the State."
The funds authorized to be appropriated under title III are allocated among the several States, 50 percent on the basis of total population and 50 percent according to the methods of allocation to be employed for the $300,000,000 appropriation authorized under title II. Our commission does not have any strong feelings as to what population figures should be used in connection with title III. It would be possible, of course, to distribute the funds on the basis of the same age group as is used in title II, children and youth from 5 to 20 years of age, if that should seem desirable. As section 302 of title III now reads, the age group 5-20 does constitute one of the bases for distributing one-half of the funds, the other basis being financial ability. The second half of the funds under title III, however, is distributed on the basis of total population.
We believe that the combination of the two methods of allocating the funds provided in title III will result in an allocation that is in general accord with the recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Education, the American Youth Commission, the American Federation of Labor, and our own commission, to the effect that aid should go to the States in proportion to need. We believe that the combination of these two methods of distributing funds will result in the funds being allocated substantially upon the basis of the needs of the States, at the same time recognizing the needs of children for services, as was stated by Mr. Woll.
The suggestion has been made in some quarters that the distribution of that 50 percent of the funds now allocated under title III upon the basis of total population should be changed to an allocation upon the basis of some particular age group, such as children 5 to 17 years of age or children 5 to 20 years of age. If the committee should desire to make such a change, the result would merely be to distribute to the wealthier States with smaller percentages of children in their