« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
receive special attention, and States should be permitted to allocate funds separately 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, a 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 thatthe 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 populations a somewhat smaller portion of funds than would be dis. tributed to such States under the bill as it now stands.
While our commission does not feel strongly in this matter, it believes there is some justification for the allocation of part of the funds provided in title III on the basis of total population. The need of Federal aid for services to children of the type set forth in title III is relatively greater in wealthy States than is the need in such States of Federal aid to assist with the regular instructional programs of the schools. Many of the services for which the funds under title III are authorized are now inadequately provided in all of the States; the method set forth in the bill for the distribution of these funds will result in a distribution that will correspond in general with the needs both of the States and of the children. We believe that it is as much an obligation of the Federal Government as of the State governments to assure that these services are provided to all children and youth. Even though the suggested method of allocating funds to the States should result in some of the wealthier States getting some Federal aid, this method could still be justified for title III, which does not provide aid to schools but aid for services to children of a type which the Federal Government has already recognized as in part a Federal responsibility. Moreover, it will cost the wealthy States more to help provide these services for all the States than it would cost them if they merely provided them for themselves. For these reasons the method of distributing funds set forth in title III seems fair and just, and we are therefore satisfied to have this provision remain as it is, with one-half of the funds distributed under title III allocated to the States upon the basis of total population.
Senator AIKEN. You see no way, then, Dr. Reeves, whereby funds could be distributed practically and exclusively upon the basis of need! I am asking you that question, because, frankly, I do not know myself.
Dr. Reeves. I like to distinguish between the different purposes of the titles of this bill. In the case of title II, the Federal Government is providing aid for functions, that is, teachers salaries and the operation and maintenance of schools, which have been accepted as a major responsibility of the State, but which some of the States cannot perform adequately without assistance. Therefore title II provides Federal aid purely on the basis of need for those States which cannot provide a satisfactory program without it.
Title III deals also with a function that is certainly related to the operation of the school program, but title III is intended to provide services to children whether they are in public or private schools, and the schools could continue to operate as most of them have operated all through the years without funds for services of the type called for in title III. That is, the school can continue even though parents pay the transportation of their own children. The school may go on even if the children have to buy their own school books. The school may go on even though the health services are not provided it. But the need for these services set forth under title III was recognized by the Federal Government in some cases before it was recognized by the State governments.
Senator SMITH. You mean the National Youth Administration and CCC?
Dr. REEVES. Yes; and some of the functions of the Children's Bureau. There are a number of examples that could be found in the general category of services for children and youth and not all are emergency programs. Most of them, however, have been emergency programs.
Senator DONNELL. Dr. Reeves, why should a State that is able to provide these functions have Federal aid at all, these functions under title III? What is the theory of that?
Dr. REEVES. My theory, and I think the theory of the commission, is this: That Federal aid should be distributed on the basis of need, but need should be interposed to include both the need of the State and the need of the children, and those two do not always go together. Although there is a general relationship between them, they are not always the same. Both are important. When a State that could have afforded to have provided these services from its own tax receipts and has not done so through all the years, it seems to me and to the members of our commission that the Federal Government has a responsibility to see to it that the children do not suffer from the neglect of that State.
Senator DONNELL. Yes; but, Dr. Reeves, these two sections, 301 and 302, do not inquire at all into the question of whether the State has provided those functions, do they?
Dr. REEVES. They do not inquire into that in connection with the distribution of one-half of those funds.
Senator DONNFLL. That is what I mean.
Dr. REEVES. With reference to the other half, that would be inquired into. In other words, half of this is on a flexible basis under the direction of the Board.
Half of it is on a population basis, that is true. That means that one-half of this has some flexibility in it and the other half does not. One-half is purely on a formula of population. The other half has a degree of flexibility in it, although the National Board is directed as to the factors it should take into account in the distribtuion of those funds.
Senator DONNELL. As to the half that is based solely on population, every State gets its amount under sections 301 and 302 regardless of whether it has seen fit to provide the transportation facilities and the books, et cetera ?
Dr. REEVES. That is correct and here is the justification for it as we see it: There is no State in the United States that is even beginning to meet the needs in the field covered by section 301. Some of them are meeting the needs fairly well with reference to transportation but are meeting the needs very poorly with reference to the health services that these children need. Others are meeting the need better with reference to transportation than some other States. In other words, you may recall, Senator, that we suggested a revision of section 301 when we suggested that school lunches be included as one of the services that could be provided as well as transportation and nonsectarian textbooks and current reading materials and health services for children.
Senator DONNELL. Transportation was to be limited to transportation to and from schools, was it not?
Dr. REEVES. That is correct.
Senator JOHNSTON. Even in the wealthier States, you have districts that are poor districts, and they have not been taken care of.
Dr. Reeves. The material that Dr. Norton presented to this committee and which I have not reviewed, because I did not wish to waste your time, it being in the record, it seemed to me showed very clearly the fact there is not a State in the United States that does not have a great need in many districts, and that need is not going to be met for these services unless the Federal Government steps in and does that job.
Senator DONNELL. I want to ask you this question, and I hope you will not take any offense at it, but I think we are entitled to get at this point.
Dr. REEVES. Senator, I assure you I will not take offense at any question you may want to ask.
Senator DONNELL. We have had testimony on both this bill and S. 181, and this testimony was given by a gentleman on 181, as I recall, who said that the provisions under which amounts were to be distributed on the basis of population had been put in or were justified in his opinion, in part at any rate, on the fact that those provisions would get votes for the measure in the Congress of the United States. I may be in error, however, as to whether that concerned Senate bill 181 or whether it was the hospital bill.
Senator ELLENDER. It was 181. I raised that question myself.
Senator DONNELL. This gentleman came right out and very frankly, as I recall it, said that in his judgment that was the reason for putting that provision, and just the other day we had here Mr. Googe who rather intimated, as I construed his testimony, to the same effect, although he did not undertake to bind anybody or state it as a positive fact, but he certainly, in my judgment, did indicate that that would have been a good reason for putting in the provision of giving money
a on the basis of population. I want to ask you whether or not in the discussions or deliberations of your commission or anyone who had anything to do with the preparation of S. 717, the point was discussed that the real reason for putting this provision in for the division of funds on the basis of population was in order that every State would get some of it, and, therefore, you would get some of the votes
State? I do not want you to take offense, but I want to know whether that was one of the considerations that entered into putting that into this bill?
Dr. REEVES. I do not want you to worry, Senator, as to whether I shall take offense, because I am not going to take offense at any questions you might ask.
Senator DonNELL. I do not want, and do not expect, to put questions that you will take offense to, but I wanted to know whether that was one of the motives that led to the introduction of this provision for the distribution of $100,000,000 and also the $150,000,000, to have half of the $100,000,000 and all of the $150,000,000 allocated on the basis of population?
Did there enter into the deliberations of your commission or any. body in the preparation of this bill the thought that by putting something in for every State that you would get support for S. 717 and not if you did not?