State of Iowa for graduates of those institutions. The average beginning salary contained in these offers of employment is $4,637. But the average salary for all public schoolteachers in Iowa'this year is only $4,296; and the average service of Iowa teachers is 10 years. Their salary averages nearly $350 less than the starting salary offered 'to new college graduates in other fields.

On the basis of value rendered to the national welfare, a teacher with 10 years' experience should be receiving a somewhat higher salary than a new college graduate in other fields.

Teaching should be ranked as one of the most important professions in our society. Education should be on such a level that it will attract and hold an ample supply of capable career people. Teaching salaries should be on a level with those of other professions so that the attrition of teachers to other professions would be no higher than the normal switching of individuals from one occupation to another. The wholesale desertions from the ranks of teachers to jobs in other professions are in themselves evidence of the need for sharp improve ment in teaching pay.

Concerning the need for new school construction, Iowa again becomes an example. From July 1, 1954, to June 30, 1957, 1,215 new classrooms were constructed in my State, but 1,127 1-room rural schools were closed, leaving a net gain of only 88 classrooms for the 3 years. During the last school year preliminary figures show that 787 rural schools were closed and approximately the same number of new classrooms were built. This means that, despite its conscientious efforts to improve and bring its public school facilities up to modern needs, Iowa during the past 4 years shows a net gain of less than 100 classrooms in the entire State. With its present child population, Iowa will need about 300 more elementary classrooms each year until 196061, and then an average of 240 new high school classrooms each year until 1965. As in other parts of the country, Iowa's birth rate is steadily increasing, indicating a continually growing school-age population in the years ahead.

Many schools in Iowa currently are using churches, auditoriums, and hallways for classrooms. Many of the State's urban centers are undergoing sudden population growths which are resulting in badly congested schools, and these suddenly expanding population centers do not yet have assessed valuations large enough to build or operato the new schools they need so badly. The only place they can obtain adequate funds is from the Federal Government.

Financial aid from the Federal Government to help improve and maintain locally operated public schools is not new. Our Federal Government has been contributing to school operations ever since it was set up. The process began even before our Constitution was adopted, with passage in 1785, under the Articles of Confederation of the Northwest Ordinance which specified that in all of the Nation's new lands "There shall be reserved the Lot No. 16 of every township for the maintenance of public schools within said township.” The process has continued ever since in one way and another. In 1929, for example, Herbert Hoover, as President of the United States, appointed an advisory council on education to study the question of Federal relations to public education. Four years later that council reached the nearly unanimous conclusion that Federal appropriations to the States for assistance in the support of public education was necessary to the maintenance of adequate educational opportunities throughout the Nation.

In conclusion I repeat what I said when I started : I feel it is urgent that S. 2 be enacted into law at the earliest possible date. Its program is one which will produce ultimate benefits far outweighing its immediate cost. It is, I am convinced, the only means by which public schools throughout the United States can be raised to levels which will offer the educational opportunities that all American youngsters deserve. I hope the bill will soon be enacted into law.

. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make this statement in support of S. 2.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Martin, for that very excellent statement that touched so many facets of this problem and analyzes so many difficult aspects of this bill.

I note that you have stressed in your statement that the local districts, the local States, the local counties would retain control of their schools. Of course, the opponents of these measures have charged widely over the country that this means federalization of the schools and that the Federal Government will reach its fingers down into the school district. You have pointed out that this bill preserves the local control in the local districts and local States.

Senator MARTIN. I think it does, Mr. Chairman, more than many of the bills, and many of the bills that were considered prior to this Congress.

I would not want any system of aid to education that would result in Federal control of the schools. I would not want the Federal Government to dictate curricula or any other part of school administration. I feel that we have to guard that. But I believe this bill, S. 2, is about as free from Federal interference with school administration as any bill that I have studied.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your analysis and your contributions to these hearings, Senator Martin.

Senator MARTIN. I would like to add informally that part of my increased concern in this field arises from the international situation with which we are faced today. We need to press as hard as we can for the advancement of our defense program.

I have been out in the field recently looking over some of our defense projects. I was down in El Paso just last weekend, at Fort Bliss, looking over the program there.

Senator Y ARBOROUGH. I envy you. I was not able to get out there. Senator MARTIN. We missed you very much, Senator.

I am very pleased with the progress made in this matter of holding up to our

present increased responsibilities in the world situation today. But I ran into a situation generally throughout the country-I have been clear across the country in this recent observation. In the higher education bracket we run into direct competition between the schools of the country and the defense administration itself, the armed services and the industrial organizations that are doing everything they can to meet this challenge, and still other competition for skills in science particularly, to the point where it is a real problem to retain the best talent in the schools. In other words, school salaries have not been able to keep up with their competition. The facts I set forth in my statement are very pertinent, to the effect that the newly trained, highly trained teacher supply has been diverted into industry at all levels at wages higher than they can get in teaching

We are in need of a lot of skilled help, professionally and technically, in this modern industrial world and especially in the national defense part of it, and we must be in position to increase the attraction for teaching or we are going to pay dearly for the loss of highly trained teachers. That goes at all levels, too, according to the figures that I have been given from my own State.

We have a challenge internationally today that is beyond anything in my time or even throughout the history of our Nation. We must give emphasis to the early years of his educational program, and then extend our emphasis all the way through his educational program so that he can be better prepared as a citizenn to measure up to the responsibility that is his. In that way we can be better prepared as a Nation to measure up to the responsibility what is now ours. This will require us to keep good teachers in the classrooms, to train more teachers, and to create better prospects of a good, attractive careers ahead.

I am glad to come here to support S. 2, as I think it is a very real step forward in measuring up to the challenge that is ours today.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Martin, for giving the subcommittee the benefit of your findings in this trip from coast to coast, in which you made a study of educational needs at the different levels that you have described. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. G. A. Biggs, president of the Pennsylvania Farmers' Association, and member of the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

a

STATEMENT OF G. A. BIGGS, PRESIDENT, PENNSYLVANIA FARM

ERS' ASSOCIATION, AND MEMBER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ACCOMPANIED BY GENE LEACH, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AND JOHN DATT, ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I think the subcommittee should like to know that I am a dairy and livestock farmer from central Pennsylvania, making a living as a farmer.

I have with me this morning two of the members of the American Farm Bureau staff office, Mr. John Datt on my left here, assistant director of the Washington office, and Mr. Gene Leach, assistant legislative director, of our staff.

I might also say before I present my statement that I was a schoolteacher for a number of years before I started farming.

I have served in our State as a member of the school study committee, the school administrator in recent year, in which a new program was proposed for education in the State of Pennsylvania.

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation on the various legislative proposals for expanded Federal aid to general education, including Fred

eral assistance for school construction and teachers' salaries. The matter of education is of vital concern to each of the 1,576,462 farm families who are members of the Farm Bureau.

The more than 2,600 county farm bureaus in our organization are giving constant study to the educational programs of their local schools. We recognize the need for continually improving our educational system at all levels, and our members are actively working at this task. By serving on local school boards, making tax studies, taking leadership in needed school district consolidation, serving on county farm bureau local school study committees and in many other ways we have sought to improve our educational system.

The importance of education to farm families is reflected in the following 1959 policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation on public schools, adopted by the voting delegates of the member State farms bureaus:

As farmers and ranchers we have a vital interest in our public school system. We recognize the importance of constantly improving public education so that it will more adequately meet our needs.

We need to develop greater individual appreciation of the problems of education, including the responsibility for student guidance and selectivity of courses, and greater emphasis on high scholastic attainment.

An imperative need of our public schools is the establishment of curricula which help students to acquire a true concept of the basic principles and philosophy of the American system of self-government and the competitive enterprise system. We should continue to appraise the curricula of our public educational system at all levels to see that they meet our present and future educational needs.

Farm Bureau opposes expanded Federal aid to education because it involves the increased control and eventual domination of our public school system by the Federal Government. Proper financing of, and increased interest on the part of individuals in the public school system at the local and State levels are necessary if we are to avoid an expanded program of Federal aid to education. The public must recognize its responsibility in this connection.

The American Farm Bureau Federation should assist and encourage State and county farm bureaus in a study of such problems as taxation in connection with school financing, school building needs, development of proper curricula, adequate teachers' salaries, including a merit system of pay, evaluation of subject matter in textbooks, and school district reorganization.

In order to encourage a careful study of the public school system as outlined in our policy and to develop action at State and local levels

insure the best possible education for our young people, the American Farm Bureau Federation is this year going to conduct two national farm bureau conference workshops on education. The main purpose of these meetings will be to help and encourage our State and county farm bureaus to increase their participation and effectiveness in local school matters.

Each year we have attempted to analyze our activities in the development of a better system of public education. We have mentioned the national conference-workshops that will be held in 1959. These are the result of several meetings of leaders from State and county farm bureaus and their desire to take additional leadership in trying to solve our educational problems. The results, we are confident, will help us do a better job.

We have cited our concern and active interest in seeking ways of improving our system of public education because we believe this can most effectively and adequately be done through the utilization of State and local funds and resources. We do not believe it is necessary to launch out on a new program of Federal aid to general education.

In this respect we are in basic disagreement with the various legislative proposals before your subcommittee. Rather than a new program of Federal aid, we believe the States and local communities will continue to provide adequate schoolrooms and improvement in teachers' salaries.

On previous occasions we have outlined to this subcommittee and other congressional committees our opposition to various proposals for expanded Federal aid for school construction and teachers' salaries. In 1957 the farm bureau opposed the passage of H.R. 1 which would have provided Federal aid for school construction. A year ago we voiced our opposition to similar proposals. We have in the past cited several reasons why there was no neeed for this particular legislation, and the Congress has consistently supported this point of view.

We know of nothing that has changed to warrant either a temporary or permanent program of Federal assistance for school construction or teachers' salaries. In fact, there continues to be a constant improvement.

Anyone who has had the privilege to travel throughout this Nation must be impressed by the new schools that are being constructed in almost every community. Counties and communities throughout the Nation are spending unprecedented sums for new schoolroom construction, and efforts are being made to increase teachers' salaries and to improve the overall conditions of our schools. Local people understand this challenge and will meet it through local taxation, without Federal assistance and without Federal controls. Federal aid could slow down this process by taking away some of the initiative to improve their own schools.

The U.S. Office of Education reports that 71,600 schoolrooms were completed during the 1957-58 school year. They also report that 68,440 instruction rooms are scheduled for completion during the 1958– 59 school year. This indicates that the construction of schoolrooms continues at a high level. Certainly this large number of new schoolrooms indicates that we are building the needed classrooms very rapidly without Federal aid.

In addition, the Investment Bankers Association of America reports that the amount of school bonds sold by States and local educational agencies for the financing of public elementary and secondary schools continued to be very high. In 1958 $2,314,458,000 worth of school bonds were reported sold. This indicates that school bond sales are remaining at record levels.

The continued large number of new schoolrooms being constructed and the high level of school bonds sold indicates that local people are making the necessary improvement in our education system without a new program of Federal aid.

We have not attempted to comment on the various bills before the subcommittee because basically the farm bureau is opposed to any legislative proposal that would provide an expanded program of Federal aid to education regardless of the approach. However, we have studied S. 2 and S. 1016, the two main proposals before the subcommittee. We note with a great deal of interest the amount of Federal funds that would be made available. S. 2 would provide