STATEMENT OF THE REV. F. J. LANKENAU, VICE PRESIDENT, EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD OF MISSOURI, OHIO, AND OTHER STATES, NAPOLEON, OHIO

Mr. LANKENAU. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, not many Americans fully understand the immensity of school life in our country. The total enrollment of our public elementary and secondary schools in 1924 was over 24,000,000 and the private and parochial schools had almost 2,000,000 pupils on their rolls.

For various reasons the labor involved in educating these 26,000,000 boys and girls is far more complex than is the education of the boys and girls of any other country. For one thing, the area over which these millions of children and youth are scattered is more immense and of far greater variation than is the case elsewhere, with the exception of China and Russia, and neither of these countries comes into consideration in the question now before us. Then, too, our large immigrant and Negro populations present a peculiar and difficult situation.

The educational situation in our country is unique in this; that while in other countries schools were almost invariably brought into existence and developed by strong central governments, our schools originated as community enterprises. And because of these small community beginnings of our schools they are still closely-I was almost tempted to say inseparably-intertwined with local traditions, local viewpoints, and local needs. The common schools of our country, from their very beginnings so largely locally supported, conducted, and controlled, in the opinion of many of us would lose much of their uniquely American character, if they should cease to be predominantly local enterprises.

This seems to have been instinctively felt by our fathers when they laid the foundations of our Federal Government. In the convention which framed the fundamental law of our country, James Madison proposed that the National Government take up the business of education. Apparently the proposal was neither discussed nor voted upon, for the Constitution mentions neither schools nor education. The members of the constitutional convention, as much as they favored popular education, very probably considered the school to be too intimate and delicate a matter to be intrusted in any way to the Federal Government.

And this attitude of the fathers which prompted the omission of schools from the Constitution, was emphasized by the ninth and tenth amendments. Both these amendments show that at the time there was a widespread fear that the Federal Government might under pressure of supposed "general welfare" attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted. These amendments stress the fact that the affirmation of particular rights implies negation in all others. They emphasize further the fact that the National Government is one of delegated powers and that it possesses and may exercise only those enumerated powers which are thus named and necessarily implied. For the Federal Government to go one step only beyond the enumeration is unconstitutional and void.

Bryce commends the framers of the Constitution for taking this attitude in his American Commonwealth when he writes:

The more power is given to the units comprising a nation, where other things are equal, be the units large or small, and the less to the nation as a whole and to its central authority, so much the fuller will be the liberties and so much the greater the energy of the individuals who compose the people.

This quotation is found in volume one at page 344 of Bryce's work. The same astute and observing statesman makes the following remark:

Nothing has more contributed to give strength and flexibility to the Government of the United States, or to train the masses of the people to work their democratic institutions, than the insistence everywhere in the Northern States of self-governing administrative units such as townships small enough to enlist the personal interest and be subject to the personal watchfulness and control of the ordinary citizen. The system of local self-government has not been only beneficial, but indispensable, and well deserves the study of those who in Europe are alive to the evils of centralization.

John Fiske, our great historian, in his "Civil Government in the United States," approvingly quotes from Toulmin Smith's "Local Self-Government and Centralization" the following pair of admirable maxims:

Local self-government is that system of government under which the greatest number of minds, knowing the most, and having the fullest opportunities of knowing it, about the special matter in hand, and having the greatest interest in its well-working, have the management of it, or control over it. Centralization is that system of government under which the smallest number of minds, and those knowing the least, and having the fewest opportunities of knowing it, about the special matter in hand, and having the smallest interest in its well-working, have the management of it, or control over it.

Fiske adds:

An immense amount of wretched misgovernment would be avoided if all legislators and all voters would engrave these wholesome definitions upon their minds.

Although the Federal Government has thus been denied all authority in the education of the people, the growth of our schools and their spread in modern times has been great. In 1880 the total expenditure of the public elementary and secondary schools of our country was a little more than $78,000,000; in 1926 the total expenditure for public elementary and secondary education was a little over $2,000,000,000. From 1920 to 1926 the expenditures for our public elementary and secondary schools practically doubled. In 1880, of 15,000,000 persons, 5 to 17 years of age, not quite 10,000,000 attended public schools; in 1926, of 30,000,000 persons of the same age, almost 25,000,000 were enrolled in our public schools. This shows an advance in six years of an attendance from two out of three to five out of six. In these years a like improvement may be seen in the value of school property, the increase in one recent year being over $400,000,000. An advance has been made in the lengthening of the school terms, average attendance, and the employment of trained teachers. There is nothing connected with schools that does not show a marked advance and improvement.

And this is reflected in the census figures on illiteracy. Our schools as now constituted are giving us all reasonable hope for the future. Illiteracy is steadily decreasing and even the more back

ward and poorer States are making fine progress in the way of more and more adequately providing for their youth.

The decennial illiteracy percentages from 1880 to 1920 are as follows: 17, 13.3, 10.7, 7.7, and 6. These figures surely show a most encouraging decrease in the illiteracy of our people in the last forty years. Illiteracy is not spreading among us, as has been claimed. For our native whites the percentage of illiteracy has dropped by decades since 1880 as follows: 8.7, 6.2, 4.6, 3, and 2. In 1890, the first year when separate statistics were compiled for the negroes, the percentage of illiteracy for them was 57.1; since then every decade has shown a rapid fall: 1900, 44.5; 1910, 30.4; 1920, 22.9. Of course Negro illiteracy is highest in those States where most of the middle-aged and aged Negroes live, while it is lowest in those States where the Negro population is mostly composed of the younger Negro generation.

However, there is one group among which there has been an increase in illiteracy, the group composed of the foreign born white population, due to the large immigration of people from southeastern Europe in recent decades. In 1880 illiteracy for this group was 12 per cent, in 1890 it rose to 13.1 per cent, in 1900 it fell to 12.9 per cent, in 1910 to 12.7 per cent, but in 1920 it had again risen to 13.1 per cent. But this increase can not justly be attributed to the lack of school facilities in our country. The doubling of schools would change this percentage but little, since the illiteracy is to be found amongst those who are above school age. For example, Connecticut has one of the best public school systems in the country, and yet its illiteracy rose from 6 per cent in 1910 to 6.2 per cent in 1920. This increase is found in Connecticut despite the fact that the illiteracy percentage for its native white population is only 0.4 per cent. But the illiteracy of the foreign born whites in Connecticut is very high, being no less than 17 per cent; and it is, of course, this high percentage of the foreign born which gives the good State of Connecticut such an apparently bad showing.

Tabulated results shown by the last census verify the assertion that our schools are doing good work, are rapidly improving, and are taking care of our youth in an encouraging manner. Our children of grammar-school age are more and more taking advantage of the educational privileges offered them. Of the children in our country from 7 to 13 years of age, 90.6 per cent are in school; of the city children from 7 to 13 years of age, no less than 94.4 per cent are attending school. And these figures lead me to think that if we deduct from the children of that age not in public schools those who are crippled, under the care of physicians, and mentally incapable, we shall find that the percentage of those not in school is not far below the record of the most literate countries of Europe, who have not forced upon them the peculiar problems of the Negro and the illiterate foreigner nor such vast areas of sparsely populated regions.

But while speaking of the illiteracy of our people, let us bear in mind that the illiteracy figures of to-day do not reflect the schools of to-day at all, but rather those of 10, 20, and more years ago. The great number of our illiterates of to-day are persons beyond school age. Of the persons who should be in school to-day, only 2.3 per cent are illiterate, and this includes the Negroes and foreign-born.

Our literacy record for native whites of school age is one that we need not be ashamed of. In 1920, 1.3 per cent of those 10 to 20 years of age and of native parentage were illiterate, while the record of the native whites of foreign or mixed parentage was even better, namely, only 0.6 per cent illiterate. While our literacy record for that part of the population between 6 and 14 years may not appear as favorable as that of a few other countries, let us not forget that our statistics are based on house-to-house canvasses by Government officials, while in European countries that rank among the highest in literacy there are no official literacy census reports. I refer to countries like Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Norway. In these countries the literacy estimate is based on data gained from applicants for marriage certificates or examinations of army recruits.

The educational progress made during the last few decades as brought out by the census reports, clearly shows that the educational problem of our youth need not fill us with apprehension. While it is and always will be a gigantic problem, gigantic problem, a way of solution has been found, and our country is earnestly and efficiently applying itself to bringing the solution to a practical end. The compulsory school laws of the States, now being more and more consistently enforced, the lengthening of the school terms, the gradual improvemente of the teaching forces will probably make it possible for our next census to show a reduction of illiteracy among those of school age to almost nothing.

And all this wonderful progress is due principally to the initiative and enterprise of local communities working independently and in a great measure unassisted. The units of school management have always been of no more and often of less than county size, and never have they been State managed or State supported, though States have helped communities unable to support first-class schools. And this is as it should be and in full accordance with sound American principles. Education should be regarded as primarily a matter of the community, and then of the State. Every State is in a position to see that every community presents an equal public school opportunity to every child; for which reason it should never be necessary to go to the Nation.

We say this advisedly, because every instance of help afforded is fraught with danger, since it has a tendency to deaden local initiative. Such is the case already in every instance of State help, and would be still more so if help came from the National Government. This remark may be deemed beside the mark in this connection, since the bill under consideration does not propose to grant financial aid for public-school purposes and its proponents insist that it in no way tends to interfere with the present local control of public schools or endanger the existence of private and church schools. It is claimed that its sole purpose is to stimulate interest in education and be of merely advisory assistance to State and local officials.

However, though fully realizing that I am exposing myself to the charge of obstinacy, honesty demands of me that I declare it to be my conviction that this bill, if enacted into law, would be a long step toward the Federal control of our public schools. Doctor Strayer,

a firm supporter of the present bill, said three years ago, when writing in favor of the creation of a department of education:

If the scientific inquiries undertaken by the department of education would clearly indicate that the Nation should furnish a larger degree of support for education, the question of providing this support still rests with Congress. If the people of the United States become convinced of the desirability of a larger degree of national support for education, they will secure it by appropriate legislation.

This statement, if it means anything surely holds out the hope of possible and even probably future Federal subsidy. So does a similar remark made by the same educator:

It is certainly true that there is little, if any, prospect of action by the next Congress, the Sixty-ninth, in support of further Federal aid for education.

Does not this strongly intimate that what the Sixty-ninth Congress might not do a later may?

Mr. William Randolph Hearst has been making vigorous campaigns in his papers and magazines for a department of education. Last August I saw a cartoon and article in the Chicago HeraldExaminer bearing the heading "Uncle Sam's biggest job." In the article occurred the words:

The way to begin is by establishing an independent department of education with a secretary in the Cabinet.

Further on the article brings to taxpayers the cheering assurance that

The Federal department of education would not have to make big expenditures right off.

If any of the States should prove themselves backward in bringing their educational systems up to date, the writer suggests that the Federal Government step in with financial help. But I fear that if this suggestion were acted upon, the proposed beginning would have developed into actual establishment of Federal educational control. Since the present bill has been submitted, Mr. Hearst's papers are making earnest appeals in its behalf, and the appeal is always made with the presumption that the creation of a Federal department of education would establish the Federal control of the schools. We know that other friends of the bill under consideration are its ardent supporters because they are of the conviction that it makes Federal control of the schools utterly impossible; and far be it from me to doubt the sincerity of these men and women. But while we harbor no doubt as to their sincerity, we can not get away from the conviction that Mr. Hearst is right.

But if our fears are well founded, the passage of this bill would inevitably bring education into politics and would make it quite doubtful whether the future head of the department of education would be an educator at all. But the appointment of a layman to the head of the newly created department of education just because of his political qualifications, would surely not mean the enhancing of the dignity of education but rather the lessening of it.

Then, too, the establishment of a department of education would have a blighting effect on education itself, since it would lead to the standardizing of our school system and cause it to develop into a machine-made routine. Craving for uniformity may become inordinate and stifle all professional initiative, interest, and originality.

1