the need for school construction is greater than ever. Like Alice in Wonderland, we have had to run faster and faster just to stand still.

We feel we deprive children of their birthright when we push them into greatly overcrowded classrooms with inadequate teaching equipment and facilities, or send them to school in shifts, cheating them of a half day's schooling which is provided for others. Certainly it is not conducive to quality education when the teacher has no time for the slow learner, the rapid learner, the troublemaker, or the children who need special attention; actually, the entire class is handicapped under such conditions. You have heard testimony to the fact that States and local communities have tried to cope with these problems. Hundreds of school bonds have been sold, debt service charges have mounted appallingly, many communities and States have reached the limits of their bonded indebtedness, some have taxed themselves to capacity and curbed other essential serv. ices, and still the need grows. We agree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that American education has much to be proud of and that substantial gains have been made in recent years; in fact we have worked diligently to achieve these gains at the grassroots and we know something of the costs and sacrifices. We do not agree that these needs are rapidly decreasing; on the contrary, we know they not only still exist but in many places are increasing.

INADEQUATE TEACHERS' SALARIES

As we have appeared before committees of the Congress in past years to call attention to unmet needs of our educational system, especially the shortage of classrooms, we have become increasingly more aware of the other great shortage-the inadequate supply of qualified teachers. There is no way to measure fully the waste in the development of human resources as a result of the shortage of qualified teachers of our children. The deficiency in numbers has obscured the more serious and greater deficiency in the quality of personnel. Since World War II we have lacked more than 100,000 qualified teachers every year. Parents all over this country are shocked that today approximately 29 percent of all elementary school teachers in the United States have less than 4 years of college preparation.

It is even more significant when we realize that these elementary school years are the most crucial years for a child and he needs an extremely able teacher. Even the veterinarian who treats our cattle and the dentist who treats our teeth are required to have 5 or more years of college preparation, yet so many teachers dealing with the minds of children have less than 4 years.

Even more disturbing is the fact that too few young people are going into the profession and too few of those who do enter it actually stay. The Rockefeller report, "Pursuit of Excellence," claims that approximately 50 percent of all graduates from all colleges (public and private) all over this country for the next 10 years would be needed to meet the country's teacher shortage in the decade ahead. We know from experience that higher salaries is the key factor in securing and in retaining qualified teachers.

Parents who are closest to our schools know that in the final analysis it is the teacher that makes the difference, and that quality education depends largely upon quality teachers. Adequate salary scales would mean selective recruitment and thus higher standards with less teacher turnover, which adds up to improvement in the quality of teaching. Until we build up respect for the teaching profession by placing our dollars where we place our values, we will have to continue to outbid our neighboring States and communities for the few qualified teachers, leaving the less wealthy communities whomever is left. It this fair to children?

FEDERAL AID NEEDED

Piecemeal approaches to the construction and salary problems will not be sufficient. We need bold and courageous action in both these areas and we need it now. These problems have been accumulating for three decades. Many States have made valiant efforts to cope with construction needs, while others have tried to provide adequate salary increases ; few have been able to do both, at least to no degree of satisfaction or adequacy.

We feel that our government at the local, State, and National levels has an inescapable obligation to provide increased moral and financial support to education if the American school system is to be able to meet the challenges of the present and of the future. We parents are concerned not so much as to the cost of providing the best possible education for our children as we are with the tremendously greater cost of not providing it.

I am not speaking for any particular bill but rather putting my organization on record as feeling that school construction and salary increases are the two most essential needs of education today.

Mr. Chairman, we recognize the ability and the sincerity of your committee, and are confident that you will report out a bill to meet today's education crisis.

I thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today.

CASCADE COUNTY TRADES AND LABOR ASSEMBLY,

Great Falls, Mont., April 21, 1959. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The Cascade County Trades and Labor Assembly is unanimous in its support of the Murray-Metcalf bill ou Federal aid to education.

We feel that in Montana, where we do not have the vast property improvements needed to sustain property taxes, it is most necessary that Federal assistance be obtained to provide suitable educational opportunities for our youngsters.

The assembly also sees much fallacy in the great stress of technical subjects. We feel that training in how to live together and in statemanship is perhaps more important than how to decimate the earth the quickest.

Very truly yours, [SEAL]

JOHN EVANKO, Secretary.

MONTANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
DEPARTMENT OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS,

Laurel, Mont., April 19, 1959.
Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MURRAY: The following resolution on Federal support was passed at the State business meeting of the Department of Classroom Teachers in Billings on April 11, 1959 :

“We urge continued Federal assistance for present well-established and useful programs. We believe that Federal assistance should be given to the States to meet emergency needs of the public school construction and salaries. These funds should be distributed to all States through an objective allocation basis, and that administration of the funds should be under the control of regular educational authorities within the States. We recommend the support of the entire Murray-Metcalf bill which provides for Federal funds for each school child, with local control, and oppose any efforts to substitute lesser provisions."

The department wishes to express its appreciation for your leadership and support of our schools in Congress. The recent school elections in Montana indicate the increasing need for legislation as proposed in the Murray-Metcalf bill. Sincerely yours,

CAROLYN STAIGER, Secretary.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Sheffield, Pa., April 25, 1959. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Because the members of the Sheffield, Pa., Chamber of Commerce recognize that Senate bill 2 is a vital necessity to the lic schools, the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce at its meeting Thursday, April 23, 1959, voted to request you to do all in your power to effect the passage of the bill.

The passage of this bill will aid greatly in the effort to provide all our youth with the quality of education to which they are entitled as the future citizens of our Nation. Some areas will necessarily fall below this standard without such aid.

In Sheffield the school district is right now engaged in a program to increase its service to the students in guidance counseling, in curriculum, and in other areas of education needed by the students. Sheffield will be able to carry through this program efficiently only with financial aid.

The Sheffield Chamber of Commerce will, therefore, appreciate everything you do to help in bringing about the passage of Senate bill 2. Respectfully yours,

(Miss) CLARA B. SPADE, Secretary.

THE ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT,

Washington, D.C., April 30, 1959. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

SIR: At a recent meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development the enclosed resolution was passed by the membership. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development is a voluntary educational organization with a membership of 7,000 educators who hold key curriculum positions in schools and colleges throughout the United States.

The executive committee believes that support of S. 2 and H.R. 22—the Murray-Metcalf bill—is consistent with action requested in the resolution and it has urged each member of the association to support this bill. Very truly yours,

WILLIAM M. ALEXANDER, President.

FAVORING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION Whereas the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development has given recognition to the need for Federal financial assistance to States for educational purposes; and

Whereas the National Defense Education Act recently passed by Congress provides assistance only in limited areas of the educational program; and

Whereas the association has affirmed its belief in a balanced curriculum : Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development go on record as favoring the passage of legislation providing Federal financial assistance to States for the improvement of all aspects of public education.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS The National Association of Manufacturers welcomes the opportunity to state its position with respect to S. 2, the School Support Act of 1959.

We are a nonprofit, voluntary membership organization representing the bulk of this Nation's manufacturing capacity. Since 1897, just 2 years after it was organized, the National Association of Manufacturers has evinced an energetic and constructive interest in education. As spokesmen for the business community, we have had considerable experience not only in studying the problems of American education but also in contributing to their solution.

With this organizational history we have been very interested in some of the reexamination of American education which seems to stem from the Russian success with their first sputnik. We have been impressed with the emphasis put on the quality of education by Dr. Conant and, more recently, by President Kirk, of Columbia University: 2

“In my judgment, the first need is to toughen our secondary school curriculum. No boy or girl should have a high-school diploma unless he or she can write simple English sentences properly punctuated and composed of words properly spelled * * *. Further, I would insist that every high-school graduate should have a reasonable working knowledge of one foreign language. * * *

“Other basic high-school requirements ought to be mathematics, history, and an understanding of modern science. * * * If it is argued that such a core curriculum is really a return to emphasis upon college preparation, and at a time when more than half of our high-school students still do not go on to college, I would merely reply that in my judgment those who do not go on to college will gain more valuable education from a curriculum of this kind than they will from the courses of low educational content that today make a hodgepodge of

2

trivia in many high schools. * * * Many a teacher * * * would like nothing better than to have an opportunity to teach something of substance and significance."

Our concern with education stems in part from our long-term interest in the optimum development of the capacities of our young people. As recently as June 1957, the NAM board of directors stated, with reference to increasing the effectiveness of education :

“Our continued progress in the American way of life depends very greatly on the products of our educational system. Industry has a vital interest, therefore, in seeing that this system—from the kindergarten to the postgraduate level-is strengthened and supported. Our country can ill afford to waste the intellectual capacity of its young men and women.'

Our interest in education is also part of our general concern with the preservation of our basic freedoms and our form of government. Education is one of the responsibilities implicitly reserved for the States by the Constitution. Our traditions bring this responsibility even closer to the homes of the children and make education a function of local government. The National Association of Manufacturers believes that:

"It is the direct and exclusive responsibility of each State and its citizens to retain control and to provide funds and facilities for public education. The citizens of each community should be actively urged by all possible means to see that their State and local governments support education adequately in the provision and allocation of local and State funds.

"It is believed that the financial position of each of the States with respect to outstanding debt, borrowing capacity, cash reserves, and potential tax resources, is adequate to fulfill this responsibility. Therefore, we do not favor Federal support, either as grants or loans. * * * (From a statement by the NAM board of directors, February 10, 1956.)

We have examined s. 2 in view of our beliefs with respect to both education and government. We are opposed to it on both sets of grounds. We feel that it has dangerous implications for the future of Federal-State relationships and that it will detract from, rather than add to, the quality of public education. Our beliefs are elaborated in the remainder of this statement.

EDUCATION: A RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The authors of this bill seem to recognize that education is not a Federal responsibility This is implied in section 2; section 11 contains specific "assurances" against Federal interference in the schools. However, the requirements of other sections of the bill do, in fact, constitute an intrusion on State and local administration of the schools.

Section 2, while paying lip service to State and local control of public education, nevertheless sets the stage for Federal control by asserting the existence of a crisis in classroom construction and teachers' salaries of such magnitude that only Federal aid can remedy it. If this claim is followed by funds, as it will be should this bill be enacted, the participating communities will, in effect, be directed to do something about school construction and teachers' salaries. The bill not only involves control in this broad sense, it also is restrictive because it would divert the school boards from trying to define and solve their local problems to finding a way to use these new Federal funds. If school boards and State educational agencies ar made disbursing officers for the Federal Government, they will lose their incentive and their authority as local policymaking bodies.

Another form of control is found in the prescription of labor standards for school construction (section 9). If we are truly facing a critical classroom shortage, why should not the local communities be allowed to build those classrooms at the prevailing local wageeven if that does not meet the standards of the Davis-Bacon Act? When they are told what wages they are to pay for the construction, the local school authorities are subject to regulation by the Federal Government-no matter what other wording appears elsewhere in the bill. And if the Federal Government can control the wages of the men who build the schools, how soon will it choose also to control the wages of those who teach there?

The answer to the last question is, in a way, already in the bill. It takes the form of the so-called school effort index, which would become effective in the fourth year of the proposed program. This index, as defined in section 8. for all practical purposes, sets national standards for school expenditures. Of course, no State is forced to comply with those standards. However, if it did not, it would lose some of the funds to which it should be "entitled" if this bill were not really a method to control educational standards.

THE AVAILABILITY OF TAX RESOURCES

The rationale of this bill is found in section 2:

"* * * the Congress recognizes that without sufficient financial resources at their disposal to provide necessary educational facilities and to employ competent teaching personnel, the control of our Nation's schools is not directed by

State and local school boards but is dictated by the harsh demands of privation. * * *

"In order to provide State and local boards with actual, as well as nominal control of schools, the Congress has the responsibility for appropriately sharing in their financial support."

Certainly this is the height of fiscal fantasy. If the tax structure needs to be overhauled so that the States and localities have increased sources of revenue, is it not better to do that than to shift a State responsibility to the Federal Government which then “shares appropriately" in supporting that function? But if the States are truly without financial resources, where is the Federal Government to get the money? It is an interesting coincidence that, shortly after this bill was submitted, Mr. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, discussing school construction with a group of labor educators, said: “There is no point in further talk of meeting this problem at the school district level, or even the community or State level. Their tax well has run dry.” (Quoted in the AFLCIO News, Jan. 17, 1959.) If “their” tax well has run dry, so has that of the Federal Government for they are one and the same-the resources of the people.

THE EDUCATIONAL NEED The educational crisis, as defined in this bill, relates to the alleged classroom shortage and the need for adequate salaries for competent teaching personnel. According to this bill, these problems can be solved by Federal money.

Whose solution is this for our educational problems? The States have not asked for this type of "help" in solving their school problems. Neither have the local school boards. The insistence in recent years on Federal aid for school construction and teachers' salaries has come from the National Education Association. In fact, the formula for grants used in this bill was first called to our attention in a "New York Times” story of December 21, 1957, which described it as an NEA program: "4.6 BILLION IN SCHOOL AID BY U.S. Is URGED AS THE ANNUAL NEED/NEA

OFFERS PROGRAM TO MEET 'CRISIS' LINKED TO THE SOVIET GAINS-OUTLAY WOULD RISE FROM 1.1 BILLION START

“(By Bess Furman (Special to the New York Times)) "* * * The specific proposals of the NEA were presented by Dr. James L. McCaskill, executive secretary of its legislative commission.

"The principal feature of the permanent plan would account for almost all of the Federal aid money. It calls for grants to the States of $25 per school child in the first year, then rising to $100 in the fourth year and standing thereafter * * *."

Does this mean that all educators support this program? Certainly not. A school superintendent recently wrote:

"* * * I am very much concerned about the Federal Government's attempt to get control of our schools, and certainly hope that the American people will urge Congress to kill any Federal aid to education bills that may be introduced this session * * *. Some of the school people of our country, I'm afraid, have been rather thoroughly brain washed.”

Actually it is not the Federal Government as such that is attempting to get control of our schools. However, individuals in both Congress and the administration are aiding and abetting the forces within the educational profession that are apparently seeking such control. Increasingly since the end of World War II these educators have appealed for Federal aid much more insistently than they have sought help and attention from State and local authorities.

Why? Certainly this reflects a general trend toward centralization of government. It also reflects the erroneous notion that it takes Federal action to give a problem its proper attention. Dr. Burkhardt comments further:

"There is nothing incompatible between the national interest in an educated citizenry and our tradition of leaving responsibility for general public education