а about $1.1 billion the first year and cost approximateley $4.7 billion annually in the fourth and succeeding years. This is on the basis of $25 per child grant the first year and raising to $100 per child grant in the fourth and succeeding years. We do not believe large sums of Federal funds is the answer to our educational needs. There is no special magic in a federally appropriated dollar. In our opinion the instigation of Federal aid to education in the form of assistance for school construction and teachers' salaries will actually prove to be a great disservice to our public school system. The result of intervention by the Federal Government could be to stymie initiative on the part of the local people who might get the impression that if they wait long enough the all-powerful Federal Government will come in and assist them. We will build more schoolrooms, pay our teachers better, and improve the education of our children if we promote local initiative and continue to finalice our schools through local effort. The public school system of this country is the envy of the world. The unprecedented progress that has been made in our public education system has been accomplished by State and local effort. Local control of our school system has made it possible for programs to be developed to fit local needs. A teniporary or permanent program of Federal aid for school construction and teachers' salaries, by necessity, would involve Federal control over our public education system. Farmers and ranchers do not want and are vigorously opposed to having their school systems dominated by Federal regulation from an all-powerful centralized government. Farmers and ranchers recognize the dangers of too much dependence on the Federal Government. Government aid means Government controls. The maintenance of strong, independent, and responsible State and local government is imperative to the preservation of self-government and individual freedom. The American Farm Bureau Federation views with considerable concern the picture of Federal intervention in an increasing number of fields which were formerly the responsibilities of State and local government. With the Federal debt at an alltime high, with the need to balance the Federal budget in order to avoid more inflation, we think that citizens throughout the Nation are becoming more and more conscious of the fact that they don't get something for nothing from Washington. It is becoming increasingly clear that inflation is our most serious economic problem. Farmers and ranchers have experienced in recent years a price-cost squeeze. Since increased costs rather than reduced receipts have been the principal element in this squeeze, farmers are determined to work aggressively for a balanced Federal budget. They know an unbalanced budget is a major factor contributing to this inflationary threat which should be a concern to all citizens. Continued inflation only results in cheaper dollars, which means we are able to obtain less for our local tax dollar spent in the field of education as well as other areas. We shall continue to study the problems of education through our farm bureau organization at the local and State level and work for programs that will meet our present and future educational needs. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this matter. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Biggs, were you here while Senator Martin of Iowa was testifying? Mr. BIGGS. Yes. Senator YARBOROUGH. Did you hear his testimony? Senator YARBOROUGH. He testified that, in his opinion, this stimulation of aid to education was the most important and pressing nondefense spending need of the Federal Government. What do you put in the category of the more important spending needs of the Federal Government other than national defense? Mr. BIGGS. We are certainly not opposing national defense. We simply want to make it clear that we believe that Federal aid would mean Federal control. We in Pennsylvania have experienced such on a State level. About 4 years ago I was a member of a committee established to develop a sales-tax program, of which 80 cents out of every sales-tax dollar in Pennsylvania went for schools, health, and welfare. The sales-tax program delegated to specific control to the State. However, since passage of the tax certain persons in our State contend that the State should assume certain local responsibilities. Last week I opposed a State legislative bill that would have given the State the authority to decide where the building sites for new school construction would be. In other words, this piece of legislation does not indicate that there will be Government control, but our experience in the past has been that any such legislation leads to Federal control. We in agriculture have experienced a lot of that. Senator YARBOROUGH. This bill S. 2 specifically prohibits Federal control, does it not? Mr. BIGGS. This present bill, yes. Senator YARBOROUGH. On page 2 of S. 2 you will notice, beginning at line 17, that it is stated: The Congress strongly affirms that the control of the personnel, program of instruction, formulation of policy, and the administration of the Nation's public elementary and secondary schools resides in the States and local communities. The Congress also affirms that a major portion of the responsibility for financ ing the costs of these schools resides in the States and local communities. Then, in the next two paragraphs, it is pointed out the handicaps they suffer. The objection has been raised that that is a mere declaration of policy and that a declaration of policy would not control the administrative action despite the declaration of policy. There has been experience in the past with officers reaching out for powers beyond the mere declaration. So, in order to meet that, in this bill you will find, on page 8, if you have a copy before you of S. 2, beginning at line 20, there is not only a declaration of policy but an express provision in the proposed law, section 11, that: In the administration of this act, no department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over policy determination, personnel, curriclum, program of instruction, or the administration of any school or school system. if I may You have a mandatory prohibition within the proposed bill itself against any such control as you have expressed concern over. I wanted to point that out because I understood you to say that the proposed law was silent on this subject. Mr. Biggs. I would like to call on Mr. Datt to answer this question, Senator YARBOROUGH. If he cares to make a statement, he may. Mr. Datt. We recognize the bill contains the provisions you indicated. It also contains provisions in various sections whereby authority is given to the Commissioner of Education for the allocation of fiscal funds to the State under which they would be required to meet certain criteria before the Commissioner could allocate funds. Then there is also the section, section 9, having to do with labor standards, which provides that, The State education agency shall give adequate assurance to the Commissioner that all laborersand so on have been paid wages under the Davis-Bacon Act. We feel that, even though the bill says in these two sections that there shall not be any Federal control, it does, by its very nature, provide the authority for control by giving the Federal Commissioner of Education the power to allocate funds only after certain requirements are met by the States. Senator YARBOROUGH. That provides that in building buildings, if they are built with Federal funds, the wage scale for the laborers building the building will be determined on a certain formula. Do you find any conflict with the provision that, no department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over policy determination personnel, curriculum, program of instruction, or the administration of any school or school system. Mr. Datt. I would comment by saying that under this section, as far as labor standards are concerned, you have Federal control in the sense that the Federal Government, if they are going to invest Federal funds to build schools, establishes certain labor standards. This is probably correct, and we would probably agree that if the Federal Government is going to do this, they should have something to say about it. This is where we feel that there is the Federal control feature. Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you think that is going to control curriculum, personnel to teach, program of instruction, policy determination of how to run the schools? That is what the law expressly says the Federal Government shall not do. Mr. Datt. I doubt that you would get into that problem as far as the labor standard section is concerned, but you do run into that problem when you refer back to these other sections which requires the Commissioner of Education in allocating funds, to obtain from the State education agency certain information. Some of the sections require that the State education agency do certain things before they receive funds. Senator YARBOROUGH. You think the Commissioner of Education would violate section 11 of the law, if the law were passed? Mr. Datt. I am not sure I would agree he would violate it. 39997—59--21 Senator YARBOROUGH. Is that not the substance of what you testified? Mr. Datt. In order to carry it out, he has to require certain things from the State agencies, and this gives him certain power and control. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Biggs, as a former teacher, you are familiar, of course, with the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862 by which the Federal Government stimulated the building of colleges and stimulated the advancement of higher education in this country! You are familiar with that, are you not? Mr. Biggs. That is right. Senator YARBOROUGH. Has that led to Federal control of the Federal land-grant colleges built under that law? Mr. Biggs. I would say no, but I think this is a different situation. At that particular time there was not definitely a move to get funds. It was a move to get a program into operation. Back in the early history of education we put a great deal of emphasis on straight academic programs in our colleges and higher education levels. Little attention was given to the vocational fields or the fields of agriculture. Of course, agriculture was our major industry then. - Senator YARBOROUGH. But the Federal Government put up the property under the Morrill Land Grant College Act by granting so many thousand acres of land per Senator and Congressman from each State, and they were actually founded under that act, were they not? - Mr. Biggs. Primarily on a research basis. Senator YARBOROUGH. My question is: The colleges were founded under the Morrill Land Grant College Act under that act, were they not? Mr. Biggs. That is right. Senator YARBOROUGH. By Federal grants, property rather than money, but by Federal grants of material things, they were founded. How many are there? Ninety-some-odd under that law today? Mr. Biggs. I don't know the exact number. I do know there is one experiment station in each State. Senator YARBOROUGH. It has not led to Federal control of those colleges, has it? Mr. Biggs. No. Senator YARBOROUGH. You are familiar, of course, with the vocational education programs? Mr. Biggs. That is right. Senator YARBOROUGH. The statement has been made before this committee that there is less Federal control now under vocational educational programs than there was when they were founded starting about 40 years ago. That, as the States and the local districts have learned how to run them, the Federal Government has pulled out and exercised a declining degree of control. Do you agree with that statement or not? Mr. Biggs. My experience is that there is a certain amount of Federal control because the U.S. Department of Education establishes the basis of such programs in the State. There is correlation between the State and Federal Government, I will say, but there is Government control. Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you agree with the statements that have been made by previous witnesses testifying that the degree of Federal control has declined with the passage of time. That the Federal Government set up the program to get it started, and as the States began to administer it, they have gradually exercised less and less control and are pulling out from the control phase of it? Mr. Biggs. I cannot answer that. I have been out of the system for quite some time. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Biggs, for coming and presenting your statement. Mr. Biggs. Thank you, sir. . Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Dr. Maycie Southall, professor of elementary education, George Peabody College, Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Southall, we are happy to have you testify before the committee. In my own State, before our institutions for the training of teachers were as far advanced as they are now, we received many great leaders from George Peabody College who came to Texas not only to teach but to help found and build our institutions for the training of teachers. STATEMENT OF DR. MAYCIE SOUTHALL, PRESIDENT OF ELE MENTARY EDUCATION, GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE, NASHVILLE, TENN., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN Dr. SOUTHALL. Thank you. My name is Maycie K. Southall, and I am professor of elementary education at George Peabody College for Teachers in Nashville, Tenn. Since I am chairman of the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee of the American Association of University Women, I have the oportunity of representing the AAUW at your hearings. It is indeed a privilege to appear before a committee with such deep concerns for the crisis which we face in American education today. The American Association of University Women, since its founding 77 years ago, has worked consistently for the improvement of education at every level from the nursery school through the university. This concern of ours has caused this association of 145,000 women, who are graduates of every accredited college in the United States, to support Federal aid to public elementary and secondary schools under conditions safeguarding State control at its last two biennial conventions. NEED FOR FEDERAL AID The AAUW has as its motto “Action without study is futile, but study without action is fatal.” Therefore, it has kept abreast of the many studies that have been made of the financial needs of our schools. As recently as 1955 the AAUW conducted a nationwide study of school finance. The results of this study convinced our members of the necessity for Federal aid to education in order that many of America's children may have even the minimum standards of education. |