Senator Goldwater's bill is a sound one, costing only a fraction of the admis istration's bill and does not turn over control of our education system to the Federal Government. Sincerely, HELEN Lote STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION WITH REGARD to 8, 380, For the benefit of some members of the committee who may not be familiar with the American Farm Bureau Federation, I should like to take a moment to touch briefly on the functions and organization of the farm bureau. The federation is composed of farm bureau memberships in 49 States and Puerto Rico, with more than 1,607,000 farm families holding membership. There are some 2,700 organized county farm bureaus. The leaders in these county units are very active in the educational program 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 district school con solidation, serving on local school study committees, and in many other ways. we constantly seek to improve our educational system. RESOLUTIONS The position with reference to this legislative proposal has been developed from the very grassroots of American agriculture and represents the thinking of these farm families at the local county level. At the most recent annual national convention, held in Atlanta in December of 1962, more than 5,000 farm burea members discussed the various State proposals and adopted farm bureau policies for 1963. The resolutions pertaining to education were unanimously adopted by this convention as follows: "We in America enjoy the finest system of education in the world. It has been a key to preserving our priceless freedoms while contributing significantly to our general well-being and unparalleled growth. We are proud of these ac complishments and pay tribute to those in the profession and outside who have contributed their time and efforts. "We are also cognizant of new and greater challenges to education. Farm bureau pledges continued efforts to help strengthen our public school system and improve educational opportunitities for young people. "The financing of public education is quite properly a State and local respon sibility. We must be ever mindful that our unique system has been developed and guided by the citizens in our school districts. This system must prevail if we are to maintain the quality of education vital to the needs of a free people. "We oppose expanded Federal subsidization of education because "(1) Experience has proved that Federal controls follow Federal re distribution of local wealth. "(2) Local initiative diminishes as local responsibility is transferred. "(3) Indirect supervision of school finances leads to increased overall school costs as well as increased taxes. "(4) Our system has clearly demonstrated its ability to meet the needs and effectively adapt to changing conditions. "We continue to emphasize the responsibilities of parents and local leaders with respect to student guidance, selectivity of courses, high scholastic attainment, and the development of curriculums which will help students acquire a true concept of the basic principles and philosophy of the American system of self-government and the private competitive enterprise system. "We favor the present method of financing vocational, agricultural, and home economics training. The improvement and expansion of such training is the primary responsibility of State and local groups. Adult vocational training programs are being conducted in many vocational fields. Such programs are proving to be of assistance in increasing opportunity for full employment and supplementing farm incomes * * "We favor reinstatement and enforcement of the previous requirements of the National Defense Education Act that recipients of Federal scholarships swear allegiance to the United States and file affidavits stating they do not belong "We oppose any further expansion of Federal aid to higher education. All vailable information indicates that the basic needs for higher education are eing adequately met with present grant-in-aid programs and local ources The President's message on education, delivered to Congress on January 29, has now been incorporated in the bill S. 580 now before your committee. The >roposal recommends a combination of programs to provide for Federal aid to education, which would include construction and teachers' salary aid for public lementary and secondary schools; loans for construction of academic facilities for both public and private colleges; grants for construction of public junior colleges; public and private college libraries and graduate schools; student loans and financial aid plans; and other aid for teachers and for adult education. The bill would also extend Public Laws 815 and 874 to assist federally affected areas for an additional 4 years-no modification in payment formulas for the first year, with a reduction in the formulas beginning the second year and the standardization of the eligibility conditions at 5 percent in the third year. It I would also be amended to include the District of Columbia under the provisions of the present laws. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS The proposal would also authorize an increase in Federal expenditure for Vocational education from the present $50 to $73 million for fiscal 1964, with necessary sums for each of the succeeding 4 years. It is proposed that vocational education would be broadened beyond the present programs under the SmithHughes Act and the George-Barden provisions. As noted in the statement of our policy, we have supported vocational, agricultural, and home economics training and would recommend continuation of these programs. However, we disapprove of the recommendation included in this bill to modify existing programs. We do not believe it is necessary to increase Federal expenditures for these programs in fiscal year 1964, but prefer that the State and local groups continue to carry the primary responsibility for these programs. To begin the financing of these educational proposals, the President has requested new obligational authority of $1,215 million for fiscal 1964 although his recommendation is that only $144 million would be expended in 1964. The detailed estimate of the continuing costs of this proposal has not been firmly outlined, but it is thought by most that it would involve between $5 and $6 billion within a 5-year period. Included in this proposal for Federal aid to education is an expansion and broadening of higher education, authorizing at least $1 billion aggregate over a 3-year period for Federal loans to institutions of higher education. It would also provide assistance to public junior colleges, college-level technical education, college libraries and graduate schools and modern foreign languages. ENROLLMENT INCREASE QUESTIONED These proposals are based on the assumption that large increases in college enrollments between now and 1970 will require facilities greater than that which can be provided under our normal growth pattern. There is real doubt as to this assumption being based on the best information available. A recent report prepared by the Ford Foundation on utilization and planning of instructional facilities in small colleges indicates that colleges involved in this study could accommodate a 50-percent increase in their student enrollment without building any new instructional facilities. The study further pointed out that (1) Classrooms are used only 40 percent of the time (based on a 44-hour week). (2) Laboratories are used 25 percent of the time (based on a 44-hour week). (3) Of the 124 colleges surveyed, only 9 percent had made studies of adequacy and utilization of their plants. (4) Except in big, prestige institutions, enrollment could be increased 50 percent without building one new classroom or laboratory. This omnibus bill is perhaps one of the most grandiose plans ever presented to Congress. It includes something for nearly everyone in the educational field and would place the Federal Government in the dominant role. We have op our basic philosophy. We do this not in opposition to education nor to sound local assistance to education, but because we believe that the Federal proposals do not provide the best answers to the problems. It is fallacious to conclude that more schoolrooms will be constructed by the use of Federal dollars than will be with State and local dollars. In fact, we believe that, in the long run, we will get fewer schoolrooms and less of an increase in teachers' salaries if we go the Federal-aid route for public education. Anyone who has traveled through this Nation must be impressed by the number of schools being constructed in many, many communities. Counties and communities throughout the Nation are spending unprecedented sums for school room construction, and efforts are being made to increase teachers' salaries and to improve overall conditions. Local people understand this challenge and wil meet it through local taxation, without Federal assistance and without Federal control. Federal aid could slow down this process by taking away local initiative. There has been a tremendous growth in the last decade in educational activ ties. School enrollments have increased 48 percent; instruction staff has increased 51 percent. There has been a 60-percent increase in the number of classrooms in use, and there has been a marked improvement in the quality of teachers. In 1950, only half of all elementary teachers had college degrees; in 1960, this number had increased to 75 percent. The National Education Association report on the economic status of teachers in 1961-62 shows that, between 1951 and 1961, the salaries of all workers in the country increased an average of 50 percent, and the Federal civilian employees jumped 66 percent; whereas, teachers' salaries increased an average of il percent. We recognize that, notwithstanding these advances, there is still need to im prove teachers' salaries, facilities, and the quality of instruction. Our local and State organizations support the National School Boards Association in their position that support and control of schools is a local matter. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL BOND ISSUES INCREASE The sales of new issues of school bonds for elementary and secondary schools have increased significantly in the last 4 years. Over $2.4 billion of new issues of school bonds for public elementary and secondary schools were sold in 1962 the Investment Bankers Association of America announced, on the basis of incomplete tabulations. This total is second only to the record total in 1961 whet sales of such bonds exceed $2.5 billion. The high level of sales of such school bonds is continuing this year as evidenced by reports in the Weekly Bond Buyer of January 21, 1963, of sales in the week Jar uary 9 to 15, inclusive of 16 issues aggregating over $66.6 million and invitations for bids for 30 issues aggregating over $64.6 million. The January 1963 issue of School Life, official journal of the Office of Educa tion, states: "Judging by the record of the past 3 months, school bond issues are faring better at the polls this school year than they did last year. In November 1962 voters approved 73 percent of the amounts submitted; in October, 81 percent: and in September, 74 percent; in all these months they went well above the average for the year preceding, which was only 69 percent." The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reported earlier this year that construction of new elementary and secondary school classrooms in the school year 1961-62 aggregated 72,000 (almost equaling the record construc tion of 72,000 classrooms completed in the school year 1960-61) and that ar average of 71,000 classrooms had been completed annually during each of the past 5 years. The proceeds of the bond sales reported above will provide financ ing for continuing classroom construction at near record levels. These facts illustrate the continuing ability and willingness of States, munici palities, and school districts to finance construction of needed elementary and secondary school classrooms. FEDERAL CONTROL We, as an organization, firmly believe that local and State responsibility is vital to the continuation of the growth of America. We continually hear and often read statements that Federal control of education will not follow The House official committee print in explanation of H.R. 3000 states under itle V, and I quote, with reference to vocational education: "State plans nay continue to follow previous vocational education statutes for transitional period of 2 years but must conform to new plan requirements by fiscal year 1966 ***" In title VII of this bill before you, this committee print, in referring to section 713, states: "Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or school system." In view of the serious financing situation facing the Federal Government, we believe that the local and State units are in a better position to finance education. In 1940, the per capita gross debt of the Federal Government was $328; the per capita gross debt of the States was $25; with $128 as the local per capita gross debt. Twenty years later in 1960, the per capita gross debt for the Federal Government was $1,617; with $105 for the State government, and $288 for the local. The Federal Government is now facing nearly a $100 billion budget for fiscal 1964, with an estimated deficit of nearly $12 billion. We strongly recommend that this committee not report this omnibus bill, but instead, soundly defeat it, which would provide the basis for the local and State school organizations to continue their educational programs and to expand them without having one eye turned toward the Federal Treasury for a handout. PACIFIC PALISADES, CALIF., May 6, 1963. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I understand that the omnibus education bill, H.R. 3000, is now having hearings before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. I want to go on record as strongly opposing this bill which would lead to the Federal Government controlling our educational system. Instead, I propose that Senator Barry Goldwater's "home rule educational bill" be seriously considered. Respectfully, MARGARET MUELLER. Hon. LISTER HILL, THE AMERICAN LEGION, LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR CHAIRMAN HILL: I am writing to you in connection with S. 580, the National Education Improvement Act of 1963, which is presently under consideration by your committee. In connection with this subject, please find enclosed a copy of Resolution 22, adopted by the National Executive Committee of the American Legion at its 1962 fall meeting. You will note that this resolution places the American Legion in opposition to any program of Federal scholarship grants and loans to students unless it contains the loyalty oath and criminal penalty provisions incorporated in the National Defense Education Act and the Science Foundation Act by Public Law 85-835. As you undoubtedly know, the American Legion voiced its strong opposition in the 2d session of the 87th Congress to H.R. 8900, the College Academic Facilities Act, after it was amended to provide certain loans to students, but with no loyalty declaration being required. It does not appear that S. 580 contains any repeal of existing provisions. However, it is deemed desirable to again advise you of the American Legion's position in this matter. We hope you will keep our views in mind in the event that any of the funds authorized by S. 580 are to be administered outside the framework of the National Defense Education Act; that is, under programs not containing provisions to which we refer. While we do not desire to have a representative of the American Legion appear before your committee we would appreciate if you would make our views known to the members of your committee and incorporate this letter and our resolution in the printed record of the hearings. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, CLARENCE H. OLSON, Director. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE AMERICAN LEGION HELD Resolution 22. Committee: Americanism. Subject: Requirements for Federal scholarship grants. Whereas H.R. 8900, 87th Congress, was approved by the House of Representatives, to authorize assistance to public and other nonprofit institutions of higher education in financing the construction, rehabilitation, or improvement of needed academic and related facilities; and Whereas the Senate amended H.R. 8900 by adding a new title to provide a program of loans and scholarship grants to students; and Whereas the amended H.R. 8900 was recommitted to conference by the House of Representatives by a close vote because of the aforesaid Senate amendment. and same was opposed by the American Legion, specifically because no loyalty test on the part of applicants for the proposed loans and grants was required in said amendment; and Whereas it is anticipated that similar legislation will be advanced in the 88th Congress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the national executive committee of the American Legion in reg ular meeting assembled at Indianapolis, Ind., October 31, November 1-2, 1962, That the American Legion oppose any program of Federal scholarship grants and loans to students unless same requires a test of loyalty at least equal to that now incorporated in the National Science Foundation Act and the National Defense Education Act, together with the penalty provisions contained in said acts, relating to the application for, or use of, said funds by members of subversive organizations. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Senator WAYNE MORSE, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Attached are the views of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States on the omnibus education bill before your subcommittee. I would appreciate it if you would make this statement a part of the record of your current hearings. Sincerely, THERON J. RICE. PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES ON S. 580, THE NATIONAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1963 S. 580 implements the panoramic view of the needs of education expressed in the President's message to the Congress on January 29, and assumes the neces sity for and wisdom of Federal assitance in improving American education on all fronts. The several proposals of this bill further assume sufficient compre hension of the relative importance of each program proposed to warrant a wide variety of loans or grants made available on a variety of formula bases, with varying degrees of local and/or State effort required to activate the programs. JUSTIFYING RESEARCH LACKING The Chamber of Commerce of the United States believes the above assumptions to be unsound and finds little research evidence to justify Federal decisions of such far-reaching influence. In fact, the Special Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor last year requested a thorough evaluation of existing Federal programs in this field to determine what achievements and general influence on education these programs were having. At the same time, the Sec retary of Health, Education, and Welfare recognized the inadequate evaluation available on Federal programs in vocational education and set up a panel of consultants to review and evaluate such Federal programs. The multitude of proposals in S. 580 appear to have been made without the benefit of the findings of these two reports, or of a third report requested by the President on the general subject of youth development and employment under the direction of the Secretary of Labor. |