The secretary of education, for instance, might follow the present fad in educational thought and conclude that the teaching of Latin is a waste of time. Educational research, skillfully directed, might serve to justify his opinion. By using the prestige and facilities which his office would lend him, he might, if not forbid, at least thoroughly discourage the teaching of Latin in American schools. Surely, there are enough sane thinking men in the United States who know that the whole process, while claiming to be based upon scientific principles of education, is no more scientific than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. In other words, educational ills are quite different from ills in hogs, and they must, in their very nature, defy forever the exact diagnosis and specific treatment that proved so successful in the battle against porcine ills.

The following words from a booklet, published in furtherance of the interests of this bill, indicate that the real intent of the bill is not mere academic study of educational problems but something like forcing the results of such study upon the thinking of American educators:

"Educational reforms, the wisdom of which the great mass of educators recognize, fail because of the fact that they do not receive the attention of our citizenry. Enjoying such attention they would promptly be put into effect in thousands of local school systems. No one in the field of education to-day occupies a position that automatically insures attention to his words when he cites the problems of the schools. A secretary of education would command such attention.'

In other words, it would be easy for the secretary of education and his particular advisers, by means of the powerful instrument of educational research, to go very far along the line of preventing local education from thinking for themselves and depriving the individual teacher of the joy of solving his own problems in his own way, of committing this Nation to educational policies as hard and fast as anything dreamed of in Prussia before the war.

We believe that such possibilities are inherent in this bill, and because we believe that the necessary research in education can be carried on more safely by the existing agencies of the Government, we oppose this bill. There is too much standardization and too much of the lock step in American education as it exists to-day without opening additional possibilities by the injection of the element of Federal interference.

The following words of President Coolidge, spoken on the occasion of the meeting of the American Legion in Omaha on October 6, 1925, containing as they do one of the most profound and timely utterances made by any statesman in this or any country, should be well pondered before we even consider any movement which remotely approaches further standardization in American education:

66

'Progress depends very largely on the encouragement of variety. Whatever tends to standardize the community, to establish fixed and rigid modes of thought, tends to fossilize society. If we all believed the same thing and thought the same thoughts and applied the same valuations to all the occurrences about us, we should reach a state of equilibrium closely akin to an intellectual and spiritual paralysis. It is the ferment of ideas, the clash of disagreeing judgments, the privilege of the individual to develop his own thoughts and shape his own character that makes progress possible. It is not possible to learn much from those who uniformly agree with us, but many useful things are learned from those who disagree with us, and even when we can gain nothing our differences are likely to do us no harm."

Respectfully submitted.

GEORGE JOHNSON

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

SENATOR BORAH AGAINST FEDERALIZED EDUCATION

Senator William E. Borah, of Idaho, has written the following letter to an educator who sought his support of the Curtis-Reed bill to establish a Federal department of education:

Miss ELIZABETH RUSSUM,

JANUARY 2, 1926.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Boise, Idaho. DEAR MISS RUSSUM: I have your letter in which you advise that the new educational bill has been introduced and stating it provides for a department of education, with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. You further express the hope that my influence and my vote may be found in support of the bill.

I regret to say to you that I can not support the bill and shall do everything within my power to defeat it. It is simply inconceivable to me that people, who have reflected upon this subject of building up bureaucracy at Washington, now wish to put under the control of the bureaucrats the development of the minds and character of the young people of our country. I can not imagine anything more deadening to initiative, to responsible citizenship, and to the ultimate welfare of the common people than to centralize here in Washington under the arbitrary and autocratic dictatorship of some bureaus the problems of education. If there is anything which has given strength to our country and which gives assurance of the future happiness and prosperity of our people and the permanency of our institutions, it is the very opposite of everything which this bill would tend to establish.

I venture to say also that in less than 10 years after the establishment of this bureaucratic dominance of educational affairs the teachers of this country would be the most belligerent and aggressive force in the country for its repeal.

Of course, I perfectly understand that this present bill provides "to collect and distribute facts and statistics," etc. But that is the "nose of the camel under the tent." Those who have watched the building up of the departments here at Washington will not be misled by that proposition for a moment. That is the way they all start. But before many years the insatiable maw draws in everything that is within possible reach and that which was tepid and tame in the beginning becomes widespread, and autocratic, and dominant in the end. I speak plainly, Miss Russum, because this is a matter about which I feel deeply and uncompromisingly.

Very respectfully,

Wм. E. BORAH.

Doctor DAVIDSON. I should like to submit a statement in reply to the criticism of the Pennsylvania State education program made by one of the opposition at the hearing before this committee last week.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the statement will be received.

Statement of Dr. William M. Davidson, of Pittsburgh, Pa.:

In the evidence submitted at the hearing before the House committee on the Curtis-Reed bill for the establishment of a department of education, with a secretary occupying a place in the President's Cabinet, reference was made by one of the opposition to the program of education in Pennsylvania and to the organization of its State department of education in such a manner as to reflect criticism upon the Pennsylvania program.

I would not now give attention to this criticism of Pennsylvania's State education program-for Pennsylvania's program needs no defense-were it not for the fact that an attempt was made by the witness to use it as a concrete example against the establishment and development of even a State department of education.

Mr. Chairman, we hold the contrary view that the development of the Pennsylvania program is a striking example and a timely illustration of the great value of survey and research work in connection with all matters pertaining to educational procedure-whether such surveys or researches are conducted within the boundaries of a given State or the boundaries of the Nation itself.

In order that the members of the committee may understand clearly the true situation in Pennsylvania, I beg to submit the following facts:

Education in Pennsylvania suffered seriously during and immediately subsequent to the World War, but the real facts in the case were not brought directly to the attention of the people of the State until the Ayres survey was published, in which Pennsylvania was shown to rank twenty-first among the States of the Union. Governor Sproul was beginning his administration in January, 1919, just at the close of the World War, and immediately gave attention to the serious situation which confronted Pennsylvania's public schools. Supporting a forwardlooking program, he was responsible for calling to the head of the schools of Pennsylvania a man with a distinguished record as a State administrator of schools, Dr. Thomas E. Finegan, who met with the united support of Pennsylvania educators and laymen and launched what has become known as Pennsylvania's public education program.

In a period of four short years Doctor Finegan made a contribution to the cause of public education, the like of which has but once before been accomplished in America by but one State school educator in a lifetime, namely, by Horace Mann in Massachusetts.

Since Doctor Finegan's time this State program in Pennsylvania has been carried on and expanded by every State superintendent of public instruction who has succeeded to that high office-by Dr. J. George Becht, who died in office; by Dr. Francis B. Haas, expert in the field of school finance and now president of the State Teachers' College at Bloomsburg, Pa.; and by the present incumbent in that office, Dr. John A. H. Keith, a man of wide and successful educational experience in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Both Doctor Keith and Doctor Finegan, you will recall, appeared before your committee last week in support of the Curtis-Reed bill.

One of the first steps taken under the new program was to organize and develop a strong State department of education and to inaugurate at once a critical and minute study of the State's immediate educational needs. One of the very first problems to be attacked was the raising of the standards required of all teachers in Pennsylvania. At that time nearly 5,000 of the State's then 45,000 teachers had no more than an eighth-grade education. The salaries paid these teachers were deplorably low, which no doubt accounted for the low standard of qualifications permitted by the State.

Immediately the State department of education, with the active support of Governor Sproul and the General Assembly of the State, and with the assistance of the leading educators and the leading laymen of Pennsylvania, prepared a plan which became known as the Edmonds bill. In the session of the legislature of 1921 this bill was enacted into law, together with many necessary and essential supporting bills. The passage of these acts by the legislature did more to improve the schools of Pennsylvania than had been accomplished by any previous legisla tion in the history of the State, excepting only the laws of 1834 and 1835, through which the commonwealth first set up its State free tax-supported public-school system.

In order to meet the financial requirements of this program, larger State appropriation was necessary to the several school districts of the State, which was immediately made possible through the passage of additional appropriation acts by the general assembly. These appropriations have been continued and increased by every succeeding session of the legislature from 1921 down to the present day.

One of the noteworthy facts in connection with the development of this State program in Pennsylvania has been that it has received the hearty support and encouragement of the governor who inaugurated it, Gov. William C. Sproul, and of the two men who have succeeded to that office since his time-Governor Pinchot and Governor Fisher.

It should be further noted that this program and all the laws which have been enacted to make it effective have been passed by the several legislatures, after most careful consideration of every bill presented to them, by practically unanimous vote. The vast majority of these bills were passed by the legislature without any opposition whatsoever. Indeed the State's new educational program has won one of the most encouraging, one of the most unanimous, and one of the most whole-hearted supports ever given to any educational project in the history of the Commonwealth.

Of course there has been some opposition to the rapid development of the program, but this opposition has been negligible and without avail. The people of the State have been, and are, preponderantly for the program and for the continued progressive dévelopment of the schools.

Another of the noteworthy events connected with the history of this program is the fact that it has been surveyed by four distinct and separate agencies, com prising men and women of the highest character in the Commonwealth or the Nation. These surveys were as follows:

First. A survey of the fiscal policies of the State of Pennsylvania in the field of education by a committee of citizens appointmed by the Hon. Gifford Pinchot, governor at the time. The Pinchot committee, called the citizens' committee on the finances of Pennsylvania, was assisted by 18 or 20 of the leading educators of the States, many of them expert in the field of investigation and research. This high-class committee put itself in every way and with every ounce of its influence back of the State's great educational program, and its report received the hearty

acclaim of the school people and the generous support of the vast majority of the laity in the State.

Second. A second survey was conducted by the State Chamber of Commerce of Pennsylvania, through its committee on education, which likewise gave hearty and cordial indorsement to the State's new program of education, as did many of the local organizations of that same body throughout the State, notably the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, which, under the leadership of one of its members, Mr. Marcus Aaron, now president of the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, announced a new slogan in connection with the support of the new education program by the business men of Pennsylvania, "Let us put the child first, the dollar afterwards, in our support of public education in the Commonwealth." What Mr. Aaron was saying in Pittsburgh the late Simon Gratz, who for nearly 50 years was connected with the board of public education of Philadelphia and a major portion of that time its president was saying in that city. Through the able and wise leadership of this distinguished lay schoolman in Philadelphia, the board of public education of that city and its business men as well gave their hearty and cordial indorsement to the new program.

Mr. Chairman, I dare say no State in the Union can claim more cordial or more generous support of its public schools than that which has been given by the business men of Pennsylvania in their warm and hearty indorsement of the State's new school program of expansion and development.

Third. A third survey was conducted by the teachers themselves through the Pennsylvania State Education Association, a large body of teachers with a paid-up membership of 57,000 members at the present time. The survey of the teachers was conducted by five experts employed from outside the State to do this important piece of work. These five experts made an outstanding report, which, from the day of its issuance, was accepted without question as coming from those who spoke with authority and full knowledge of the facts. Their emphatic indorsement of the State program served to strengthen and greatly expand that program through the years following the report of this survey committee of the State Education Association.

Fourth. The fourth survey of the State's new educational program was made by the Pittsburgh Sun, one of the leading daily papers of Pittsburgh and of Pennsylvania. This survey was reported in the editorial columns of the Daily Sun in the month of April, 1922, in a series of editorials, a new and separate editorial appearing in each issue of the paper for a full month. In this series, Mr. Charles F. Lewis, editorial writer on the Pittsburgh Sun, so ably discussed the various phases of the educational program that the Pittsburgh Sun, in response to a widely popular demand, published the editorials in a single pamphlet which was given wide circulation throughout the State. The Sun's hearty approval and indorsement of the new State program, together with its keen analysis and able defense thereof, was one of the notable events in the great campaign for better schools in the Commonwealth.

What the Pittsburgh Sun was doing in support of the new program in the western end of the State, the Public Ledger of Philadelphia was doing in the eastern end of the State, through the publication in its columns of a series of ably written articles in support of the whole movement. Indeed, the newspapers of the entire State were practically unanimous in their warm indorsement of the program. They molded public sentiment in favor of the measure, and in every way stood back of the movement inaugurated by the school directors and the educational forces in their combined efforts to promote educational progress in Pennsylvania.

The strong and energetic support given this program by the Pennsylvania State School Directors Association was one of the most striking events in connection with this educational campaign in the Commonwealth. There are 2,500 distinct and separate school boards in the State with a total membership of 15,000 members. These men and women have organized themselves into a great State Directors Association, through which they have exerted a powerful influence upon the progressive development of the schools of the Commonwealth. The State association of this body time after time, by resolution and by action, gave its unqualified indorsement to the program. From the day the program was first promulgated down to the present time, this body has never faltered in its support.

Indeed, the boards of school directors of Pennsylvania constituted perhaps the most powerful influence in the State in putting over the program, and in inducing the legislature to pass the laws needed to make such program effective. Their leadership in and direction of this movement served to mold the body of men

and women comprising the 15,000 school directors in the State into a wholehearted unified support of all the measures proposed to the legislature in connection with the program.

It is surely significant that the 2,500 separate boards of school directors in Pennsylvania, whose function it is under the law to direct the local schools and establish the policies under which they shall be conducted, were largely responsible through their urgent support of the State education program, for its successful establishment by the legislature of the State.

If time permitted I should like to tell the story of the past 10 years of educational progress in Pennsylvania where the State's new education program has lifted the schools of the Commonwealth from the rank of number 21 on the Ayres index scale to a place where Pennsylvania's public schools now take rank with the best State school systems in the Republic. The record which Pennsylvania has made in the improvement of its schools since the day when its noble and far-seeing governor, the late William C. Sproul, first aroused the citizens of the Commonwealth to discharge their whole duty to the children of the State, constitutes one of the romances of the past 10 years in the history of education in America.

In the mind of Pennsylvanians, who believe that the whole future of the Commonwealth lies in the proper training of its children and its youth, no greater chapter has ever been written in the history of education in America, save only that which Horace Mann wrote in Massachusetts and that which Thaddeus Stevens wrote in Pennsylvania when he fought the battle for the establishment of the State's free tax-supported school system in 1834 and 1835, and put out of business forever the hated "pauper" schools in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that I be permitted to submit for the record the text of two of the surveys to which I have referred in my remarks, the survey conducted by the State chamber of commerce and the survey conducted by the Pennsylvania State Education Association, copies of which I chance to have at hand. In submitting this material with my rapid-fire review of the program, I am not unmindful of the fact that any discussion of the States education program in Pennsylvania is, after all, but grist to the mill of all those who believe that the facts which Pennsylvania is developing by herself alone and the facts which everyone of her sister States is likewise developing and the evident imperative need and insistent demand of all the States for such facts-constitute the very strongest possible arguments in favor of the creation of a department of education in the Federal Government with a secretary of education at its head, whose function it shall be to serve as an educational clearing house for all the free tax-supported State school systems of the several States in the Union, as well as a distributor of the facts which such a department would disclose in its own special researches conducted for the benefit of all the schools in the land.

May I again state that Pennsylvania feels the need of such a clearing house. Every State in the Union feels such need. The fact is apparent to all that education must be more and more scientific in its procedure in the future in this country than it has been in the past-this is the intelligent and emphatic demand of both schoolmen and laymen in every State in the Union. But such scientific procedure can only be brought about by basing our course upon facts to be discovered by sane and proper researches into the field of work covered by the great educational endeavor in America-an endeavor which touches the life of every man, woman, and child in the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, I can not be too insistent in calling the attention of your committee to the fact that while Pennsylvania unaided and alone has accomplished much in the matter of the improvement of its schools, yet, it was constantly felt by all during her stirring campaign that the State would have been tremendously aided in her endeavor could it have had at the time other facts than those which the State herself had disclosed in her own surveys and researches-facts gathered from outside her own borders from her sister States engaged upon a like adven ture, and from the Nation at large. It will be apparent that these outside facts can only properly be collected and distributed by a well-organized high-class Government agency set up to act as a clearing house and research agency for the benefit of all the schools in all the States of the Republic-an agency such as the Federal department of education with a secretary at its head, for which we have so earnestly plead in this hearing.

In our final word we desire again to make clear that the National Education Association and all its supporting organizations are absolutely and everlastingly opposed to the National Government ever having a vestige of control over either