Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

funds appropriated under the authorization of this section may be allocated by the Commissioner to State departments of education for surveys or other studies pertinent to the best uses of the funds received under this Act. Such allocations shall be made by joint agreement between the Commissioner and the chief State educational authority. The amounts thus allocated shall be certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Commissioner, and shall thereupon be paid to the cooperating State department of education. Suitable provision for audits, reports, and repayment to the United States of amounts unexpended, lost, or misapplied shall be incorporated into the joint agreement.

REPORTING

SEC. 11. The Commissioner shall publish annually a full and complete report showing the status of education in the United States. Each such report shall include an analysis and summary of the legislative and administrative provisions adopted by each State for the expenditure of funds received through this Act, and also statistical information showing the accomplishments of the respective States through the expenditure of funds received under this Act. In all such reports relating to the status of education in States where separate educational facilities are maintained by law for any minority racial group, data relating to such separate educational facilities shall be separately reported. The Commissioner shall also make an annual report in writing to the Congress, giving an account of all money received and allocated by him under this Act.

MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 12. The Commissioner is authorized to make such rules and regulations in conformity to the provisions of this Act as may be necessary to facilitate its administration.

DEFINITIONS

SEO. 13. As used in this Act

(a) The term "State" shall include the several States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, and Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(b) The term "legislature" means the State or Territorial legislature or other comparable body, except that in the District of Columbia it shall mean the Board of Education, and in American Samoa and the Virgin Islands it shall mean the Governor.

(c) The term “minority race" or "minority racial group” shall mean any race or racial group that constitutes a minority of the population of the continental United States.

(d) A just and equitable apportionment, allotment, or distribution of the funds provided under this Act for the benefit of a minority racial group in a state which maintaiņs by law separate educational facilities for such minority racial group, means any plan of apportionment, allotment, or distribution which results in the expenditure, for the benefit of such minority racial group, of a proportion of said funds not less than the proportion that each such minority racial group in such State bears to the total population of that State.

(e) The term “State educational authority” means, as the State legislature may determine, (1) the chief State school officer (such as the State superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of education, or similar officer), or (2) a board of education controlling the State department of education; except that in the District of Columbia it shall mean the Board of Education, and in American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, it shall mean the Governor.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 14. If any provision of this Act or application thereof to any State, person, or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provisions to other States, persons, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

The CHAIRMAN. The reporter will note the attendance in the record.

Senator HILL. Mr. Chairman, might I state in that connection that Senator La Follette called me a few minutes ago and said he was detained at his home today on account of a very severe cold. He was disappointed not to be here, but he wanted the committee and the witnesses to know why he could not be here.

The CHAIRMAN. I might say also a number of hearings are being held this morning and it is impossible for the Senators who would like to be here to be present at the commencement of these hearings. They will, of course, read the record and be with us at subsequent hearings.

The first witness this morning is Dr. H. M. Ivy, chairman, legislative commission, National Education Association.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. M. IVY, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE

COMMISSION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Give your full name and official position, Doctor, please.

Dr. Ivy. Mr. Chairman, I am H. M. Ivy, superintendent of schools, Meridian, Miss., and chairman of the legislative commission of the National Education Association.

Mr. Chairman, the National Education Association desires to express its emphatic endorsement of S. 181, to be cited as the “Educational Finance Act of 1945," and to urge its enactment into law at the earliest possible date.

The National Education Association with its 325,000 members, together with its 48 State and numerous directly related local organizations, represents 800,000 of the 875,000 men and women connected with public education in this Nation. For many years legislation of this type has been considered, and the features of this bill are approved by an overwhelming majority of the teachers and others who have taken the time to study its provisions and become aware of the needs it is planned to meet.

The legislative commission of the National Education Association is charged with the responsibility of throwing behind this bill the full strength of the entire organization and its affiliates, and it considers this bill as the No. 1 measure of importance educationally to assist in the achievement of national security now, as well as in the future.

In support of this bill, Mr. Chairman, we desire to present to you Dr. John K. Norton, of Columbia University, a nationally known educator, who will demonstrate some of the reasons proving the necessity for such legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I desire to yield to Dr. Norton.

Senator Hill. Mr. Chairman, before Dr. Norton proceeds with the demonstration of his charts, it might be well to have either Dr. Norton or Dr. Ivy just in a word summarize what the bill does. In other words, we have the two funds—the $200,000,000 fund and the $100,000,000 fund. Some of us have lived with the problem a good many years and are familiar with all the details of the bill, but it might be well to have it summarized for us.

Dr. Ivy, suppose you just, very briefly, summarize just what the bill does? You need not go into the details.

Dr. Ivy. This bill consists, roughly, of two parts. The first is the equalization part that proposes $100,000,000 to be distributed to States based on their educational load directly and inversely in proportion to their financial ability to carry that educational load." The first

[ocr errors]

division then of the bill, the $100,000,000, is the equalization feature of the bill.

In view of the war emergency resulting in the depletion of our school faculties and the draining away of our trained teachers into the industrial and armed services of our Nation, we are proposing in another section of this bill an appropriation of $200,000,000 in an attempt to balance teacher income so as to keep them at their teaching jobs. A part of the emergency fund of $200,000,000 is to be spent in employing additional teachers for added services that are badly needed. We want particularly to adjust the salaries of teachers who have actually stayed on the job in the face of heavy sacrifices resulting from the increased cost of living. The $200,000,000 feature is for the duration of the emergency.

The money obtained through this bill is distributed through a formula written into the bill, to be handled through already established educational channels, so the matter of additional cost of the administration will be a very small minimum. The establishment of the formula for distribution of money reduces the possibility of Federal control to a point where it does not enter into the bill. None of us want Federal control of our public schools, and that is definitely taken care of.

Senator HILL. In other words, Doctor, under the provisions of the bill the money goes to the States.

Dr. Ivy. That is right.

Senator Hill. The money is disbursed by the States to State educational systems?

Dr. Ivy. Yes; under State laws.
Senator HILL. Under State laws?
Dr. Ivy. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator Hill. The formula for the allocation of money to the different States is mathematically arrived at ?

Dr. Ivy. That is correct. Senator Hill. In other words, it is not left to the discretion of any official of any Federal agency as to what each State will get. The bill specifically sets out the formula and that formula is worked out by mathematics so every State may know today what they will get and how the money will go into the State and local systems; is that right?

Dr. Ivy. Yes, sir; and the facts upon which the factors of our formula are based are collected and have been collected by the Government officials of the Office of Education for many years. They are known to them and can be checked on.

Senator MORSE. Does the bill have the effect of giving a blanket increase of an equal sum to every teacher in the country?

Dr. Ivy. No, sir

Senator AIKEN. That is one of the changes since the bill was offered last year, Senator.

Dr. Ivy. The $200,000,000 is to be distributed to the respective States based upon average daily attendance. That is one of the best provisions we can have in any educational law anywhere. That $200,000,000, distributed on that basis, is to be used for teaching services. It is left to the State authorities to decide how that can most effectively assist in teaching services. A large part of it would probably go into

increasing teachers' salaries because of the 30 percent increase in cost of living which has not been met.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question that I would like to ask Dr. Ivy.

Dr. Ivy. All right, sir. Senator Alken. This bill is a war measure. It states on page 3: This authorization shall terminate one year after the President shall have declared the emergency due to the war to have ceased, or one year after the Congress by concurrent resolution shall have so declared. What I would like to ask, Dr. Ivy, is this: If this is a good bill as a

a war measure, when the States have more money than they have had before the war, or will have after the war, why is it not offered as a permanent bill instead of just as a war measure?

Dr. Ivy. The emergency feature applies to the $200,000,000. The equalization feature is a permanent part of the bill.

Senator AIKEN. The $100,000,000 is. I see that now, in the next paragraph.

Dr. Ivy. That is right. Consequently the emergency feature is intended to do just what you have pointed out, Senator, and the other part is to become permanent. There will always be a need for providing Federal funds to equalize educational opportunity between the States. And, gentlemen, although my hair is graying, I trust to see the day when Mississippi will be among the top States in wealth rather than the bottom and the need for help may be reversed under the equalization program at that time.

Senator MORSE. As far as the emergency fund to be used for the increase in salaries is concerned, if the State agencies wish to use it for that purpose, is there any safeguard in the bill which will prevent them from increasing salaries above the wage stabilization program of the Government, or, to be specific, above 15 percent?

Dr. Ivy. Well, Senator, the present average salary of a teacher in this country is $1,600. The salary in Government service is $2,500. We can divide this money in any State any way we want, and we still would not reach what the Government is already paying its own servants. Consequently, as far as I can see, there is no risk of teachers' salaries being run too high.

Senator Morse. You mentioned the cost-of-living criterion.
Dr. Ivy. Yes.

Senator MORSE. As far as the cost-of-living criterion is concerned, I expect, under the stabilization program, 15 percent would be the limit. If you want to suggest-and I think you could rightly do sothat another criterion of substandard wages may be applied and make the adjustment on that ground, that is up to you, but a 30 percent increase in cost of living does not have much weight with me because I have heard that argument a good many times. I think it is only 15 percent, as far as cost of living is concerned. It seems to me you ought to emphasize there are places in which substandard salaries constitute an increased cost of living.

Dr. Ivy. The demonstration by Dr. Norton will show the areas in which those substandard salaries are very substantial.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Ivy.
All right, Dr. Norton.

a

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN K. NORTON, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION,

TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. You may state your name and position, Doctor.

Dr. NORTON. My name is John K. Norton. I am professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Senator AIKEN. May I ask whether you are here representing the Teachers College of Columbia University or not?

Dr. NORTON. No; I am here wholly as a person who has conducted a rather extensive research that has factual information in it that I think would be useful to your committee.

Senator AIKEN. The reason I asked that question is because we get so many doctors and professors from colleges' who always come in the name of the college in identifying themselves, and sometimes give the impression that they are representing the college.

Dr. Norton. I state the name of the college merely to identify myself and in response to the question asked.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Doctor.

Dr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, some 3 years ago a group representing a number of educational organizations of this country got together to critically appraise our methods of collection of school statistics, and particularly those that had to do with the financing of education. The groups represented in that meeting were the American Council on Education, the United States Office of Education, the National Council of Chief State School Officers, the Southern States Conference on School Administration Problems, the National Education Association, and 48 State departments of education.

Whereas, we recognized that the U. S. Office of Education collected a large amount of exceedingly valuable statistical information concerning education, yet all of us, including the representative of the Office of Education, agreed that the data collected were not what we needed in toto. We needed data in different form. We needed types of information which take account of newer concepts and developments that have come into the semiscience of financing of education in the last 20 years. So we agreed to seek resources to attempt to make a national inventory of the financing of education in a form that had never been made before. We presented our proposition to the General Education Board and received a grant from them and proceeded to collect data from literally every one of the 115,000 school systems in this country; in fact, 17 items of information from each of those 115,000 school systems. The study is remarkable in that all of the 48 States, plus some of the Territories, and all of the school districts in the country are represented. In a sense, for the first time in the history of education in the United States, we have a complete accounting of our children and what is behind their education in terms of finance. The objective of the study, as a whole, was to collect figures to answer two questions: (1) What is the educational job to be done in each school district; how many children are to be educated, taking account of the conditions under which they are attending school; and (2) What expenditures are back of the education of the children in each of those 115,000 school districts?

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »