« AnteriorContinuar »
The CHAIRMAN. But that is not your opposition to the bureau?
Miss KILBRETH. No. We oppose this educational bill root and branch.
The CHAIRMAN. And every phase of it.
Miss KILBRETH. Every phase of it. In our dual form of government education was left to the States. In all of this discussion much has been said about States' rights, but not much about our dual form of government. If you impose this Federal activity of government on the States you are imposing a double government on the unfortunate taxpayer, and American citizens will have two governments on their backs.
The American people have been encouraging education in the States. Doctor Strayer has said that in 1921 the States were spending $1,750,000,000 on education, so that it can not be said that the States are starving their people on education. We have compiled a table that shows the expenditures of last year.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
Ten-year increase of public school pupils, teachers, and expenses in the United
1 Compiled from the World Almanac, 1928 (p. 397) table by the United States Bureau of Education.
From the above table it will be noted that the 10-year increase in the salaries of teachers and superintendents in 1926 represented an amount greater than the total expenditures on public schools in 1916; that the proportionate increase in total expenditures was ten times the percentage of increase of pupils, and the increase in salaries more than ten times the percentage of increase in pupils.
In addition, there are 654,266 students in American colleges and universities, and at least 2,500,000 pupils in parochial and other private schools. (Ibid. pp. 393, 408.) The cost figures are not available.
The value of all public-school property for the school year, 1925–26 was $4,676,603,539. (Ibid. p. 399.).
The total annual expenditures for education in public schools (in 1926, $2,016,812,685) is nearly half as much as the total value of all public-school property. The States are thus spending upon teachers' salaries, new buildings, equipment, etc., every three years, more money than represented by the total value of all public property used for school purposes. In other words, the maintenance of the American educational system for three years costs the State taxpayers more than the total cost of rebuilding and refurnishing every public school in America at its present valuation.
Surely, then, it can not be said that the States, or the American people, are "niggardly” in supporting public education, or that public education needs the "stimulus" of a Federal department in order to grow. As a matter of fact, the increase in total expendi
tures for public schools, from 1916 to 1926, corresponded almost exactly with the increase in our fastest growing industry, publicschool expenditures increasing from $640,717,053 to $2,016,812,685 and the wholesale value of passenger automobiles increasing from $797,469,353 to $2,730,385,507 in the same 10 years. (Ibid. p. 352.)
Without Federal aid or a Federal department, public education in the United States, at least in cost, is growing as fast as the most spectacular increase of an industrial product the world has ever known.
In connection with the charge that teacher advocates of this bill were interested in it financially and the denial by an advocate witness at this hearing, I recall to the committee that there has been proof of such self-interest as far back as the 1920 hearings on the SmithTowner bill.
Mr. L. V. Lampson, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers at the original joint hearings on the Smith-Towner bill, July 10–22, 1919, testified in part as follows:
"The facts relating to the inception and history of this bill should appear in the report of these proceedings for the information of the country. They are in substance as follows: At a convention held in St. Paul, in June, 1918, upon a resolution introduced by Delegate Stillman, representing the organized teachers, the American Federation of Labor went on record in favor of the creation of a department of education and the annual appropriation of $100,000,000 by the Federal Government in aid of teachers' salaries.
At its convention in Pittsburgh, held in June, 1918, the American Federation of Teachers went on record in favor of resolutions of similar import. In conformity with these resolutions a bill was in the process of being drafted. In the meantime the National Education Association secured the introduction into the Senate of what is known as the Smith bill.
Then followed the introduction of the Smith bill, amended, into the House under the name of the Towner bill. Unlike the original Smith bill it [Smith-Towner bill] contains specific provisions for Federal aid in the payment of teachers' salaries. The way to improve the schools of America
is to raise teachers' salaries (p. 115). Dr. George D. Strayer, of Teachers' College, Columbia University, at the same original joint hearings, testified in part:
"Half of the $100,000,000 (Federal fund) appropriated shall be devoted solely to paying the salaries of the teachers on the condition that the States shall pay them as much more. That is a very good beginning” (p. 51).
Mr. FLETCHER. When did Senator Fess make that statement?
Miss KILBRETH. No. I am going back to the early bill. All of these bills have about the same backing. The Fess remark was on page 53 of the joint hearings, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session.
In the 1926 joint hearings Senator Copeland asked Dr. S. P. Capen, chancellor of the University of Buffalo, “Really, it gets back to that every time, the matter of dollars."
Doctor Capen said, "Well, largely” (p. 27).
So I think we are quite justified in thinking there is such an interest in the bill.
Dr. J. A. H. Keith, president, State Normal School, said:
I do not believe that anything short of a Federal bounty will do it.
We are the richest Nation the sun ever shone on. It is not financial inability at all. It is a matter of distribution, and we can not bring these things about until we get a fair deal on the economic side.
As to the Federal-aid proposition that was dropped in this bill, but that was in the previous bills. Great emphasis has been laid on the fact that it is not in this bill, and the emphasis is misplaced because
there is ample testimony in the statement of the proponents to prove that it is not a bona fide relinquishment and that there is no intention whatever of giving up that money. It is only a temporary expedient, the camel's-nose-under-the-tent subterfuge to get this hill through. Somebody remarked the other day that it was understood so from a former president of the National Education Association. There has been great reticence in the National Education Association. In 1921 at the National Education Association biennial convention where the change was made I could find no discussion at all. The report of the legislative commission does not even directly mention Federal aid. This is a statement from the report of the legislative commission, by Dr. George D. Strayer, chairman of the commission. He says:
Your legislative commission worked most earnestly during the last session of Congress to have the education bill, then pending, reported out by the committees of the House and of the Senate. The legislative secretary of the National Education Association, Miss Charl rmond Williams, obtained the active cooperation of the representatives of 21 other national organizations supporting the measure. Even with their combined interest and support, it was not possible to secure action by Congress. That we were not able to get a report from either committee throws considerable light upon the present legislative situation. In view of this situation, the commission voted at a meeting held in Cincinnati in February to propose á bill creating a department of education, but omitting appropriations other than those necessary for carrying on the work of the department.
I searched the National Education Association Journal for that report. But in the reports of that Cincinnati meeting, I could find nothing about the dropping of the Federal-aid provision.
Mr. BLACK. Does it say anything about the necessity for research work?
Miss KILBRETH. In that connection, Doctor Strayer says:
Your legislative commission is convinced that in the bill to be presented before the next session of Congress, emphasis should be placed upon the function of the Department of Education as an agency for the conducting of investigations and for the dissemination of information.
And so forth. He continues that this is in accord with the position of the President. I want to take up the President's position in just one minute. I have something here on that.
The National Education Association was very reticent on this complete somersault of policy. The nearest official statement we can find on just exactly why they made this change is from the Christian Science Monitor of June 22, 1925. It seems fair to quote this paper because the Christian Science Monitor is for this bill and friendly to the National Education Association. It says:
The National Education Association leaders decided to defer their request for Federal aid of education because they realize the unwisdom of pursuing it further at the present.
The same article says of Dr. George D. Strayer:
An untiring worker for a department of education, Doctor Strayer also sought to encourage education in the States through Federal aid until he saw that further campaigning along this line promised for the time to be barren of results.
The article continues:
Asked to comment further on the Federal-aid discussion, Miss (Charl) Wil, liams, (field secretary legislative division National Education Association and former National Education Association president) said: “There is a general understanding among educators that Federal aid will be deferred. Our bill in the last two sessions of Congress has been a double-headed one. We have
decided it is better to make progress in the one direction that is now open. It is inconceivable that the National Education Association will ever give up the idea of the extension of Federal aid to education."
Numerous flat categorical admissions to like effect were drawn from witnesses, chiefly at the joint hearing at the last session of Congress. Here are a few I will insert in the record, if you will permit.
The CHAIRMAN. You may insert them.
The dropping of the Federal-aid provision in the pending Curtis-Reed bill is not a bona fide relinquishment of the $100,000,000 Federal appropriation (to be matched by the States) but a mere suspension of the demand until the department is established. Like the maternity act, reduced from $8,000,000 to $1,480,000 to get through Congress, the education department bill comes down to $1,500,000 as the entering wedge amount to trick Crongress.
Federal aid was dropped only as a blind. Naturally, this is not intended to be admitted to the general public, but it has been drawn from National Education Association witnesses by ommittee cross-examination, and also is frankly admitted in the bosom of the National Education Association official family. The recent hearings show:
“Representative BLACK of New York. Do you favor Federal aid?
“Dr. J. L. McBRIEN (director of rural education, State Teachers' College, Edmond, Okla.). Yes sir; I am frankly for Federal aid. It may not come this time, but it is coming; it is coming; you can not stop it. You may delay it, you may postpone it
(Joint Hearings, February, 1926. p. 72.) Mr. Black of New York. Is it your opinion that if this bisl is passed the agitation for Federal aid will continue from the same sources as support this bill?
"Dr. GEORGE D. STRAYER (former president National Education Association, professor of educational administration, Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York, and chairman of legislative commission National Education Association). I see no reason why those who are convinced of the legitimacy of Federal aid should not continue to believe in it. (Ibid. p. 3.)
“Senator PHIPPS. The idea that has seemed to predominate heretofore has been the necessity of Federal aid.
On the former bill—the SmithTowner bill, and also on the Sterling-Reed bill
the committee was told very pointedly that the request for Federal aid was universal and that it was absolutely essential and was necessary to advance the cause of education in the United States. (Ibid. p. 49.)
“Mr. JESSE H. NEWLON (former president National Education Association, superintendent of schools, Denver, Colo.). My private opinion is that the profession is overwhelmingly in favor of Federal aid (p. 49).
“Dr. HAROLD W. Foght (president Northern Normal Industrial School, Aberdeen, S. Dak., formerly connected with United States Bureau of Education), You ask me if I am in favor of Federal aid? My answer would be certainly, I am (p. 77).
“Mr. REED of New York. Doctor, will you feel yourself stopped from asking for Federal aid from Congress if this bill passes? “Dr. John A. H. KEITH (president State Normal School, Indiana, Pa.). No,
I shall not. (Ibid. p. 89.) As to the President's position, that has been touched upon, and the references that have been made to the administration's alleged support of this Federal department of education. President Coolidge did not recommend this bill. He was speaking on an entirely different bill. I want to be very specific about that. The President said in his message the following:
I am still of the opinion that much good could be accomplished by a department of education and relief, into which would be gathered all of these functions under one directing member of the Cabinet.
I say this can not be interpreted as an indorsement of this bill.
Miss KILBREATH. Yes; I am opposed to the department of education, and relief also. I think there is no question but that in the
minds of many people who knew nothing about the background of this bill the impression was made that the President was for the Curtis-Reed bill.
Here is a table of the activities included in the education and relief department bill—the Smoot-Mapes bill—that bill put in legislation form the reorganization committee's report. I ask to insert a table we compiled when the bill was up. The total appropriation for the activities included in the bill came to the sum of $745,979,481.
(The statement referred to is as follows): Proposed "education and welfare” department appropriations-Great new aggrega
tion of power to control $745,000,000 a year-1925 appropriations for agencies proposed to be included in new department of education and welfare (or relief)
References: List of agencies from House Report by Joint Committee on reorganization, June 3, 1924, to accompany H. R. 9629. Appendix A. Official figures from the Message of the President of the United States, transmitting the Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, except as otherwise indicated. Secretary of education and welfare (proposed salary )-
$12, 000 Assistant secretary of education (proposed salary i).
10,000 Bureau of Education (see Budget, p. 544)-
3, 253, 380 Indian Schools (figures from Bureau of Indian Affairs)2
11, 170, 220 Howard University (see Budget, p. 557)--
365, 000 Columbia Institution for the Deaf (Budget, p. 555)
109,000 Smithsonian Institution (Budget, p. 88)
869, 101 National Museum, National Gallery of Art, International Exchange Service, Bureau of American Ethnology, Astrophysical Observatory, National Zoological Park, International Catalogue of Scientific Literature, all proposed to be transferred to new de
artment, appropriations included in above under Smithsonian Institution. Physical education (new, see Fess Bill, S. 1409) Federal aid. 10,000,000 Vocational Education (Budget, p. 53) Federal aid. Vocational Rehabilitation (Budget, p. 102)
6, 380, 000
89, 000, 000 Assistant secretary for public health (proposed salary 1).
10, 000 Public Health Service (Budget, p. 784).
8, 731, 021
6, 754, 562
810, 000 St. Elizabeths Hospital (Budget, p. 554).
1, 293, 000 Freedman's Hospital (Budget, p. 558) -
174, 700 Research: Assistant secretary for social service (proposed salary 1).
10, 000 Women's Bureau (Budget, p. 608)-
107, 380 Children's Bureau (Budget, p. 607)-
1, 332, 992 Office of Superintendent of Prisoners (Budget, p. 591).
3, 386, 926 Assistant secretary for veteran relief (proposed salary 1). Veterans' Bureau (Budget, p. 104)
263, 065, 000 Soldiers' Bonus (estimated, Budget, p. 103). Bureau of Pensions (Budget, p. 486).
114, 503, 199
224, 616, 000 Solicitor (proposed salary).
6,000 Total annual appropriations under new department.--- 745, 979, 481
1 Proposed salary figures are from original Kenyon-Fess Welfare Department bill of May 5, 1921 (S. 1607; H. R. 5837, 67th Cong.), as the Smoot-Mapes reorganization bill (S. 34-15; H. R. 9629, 68th Cong.) prefers not to mention the amount of any salaries or appropriations included-another proof that the authors found it impossible to exhibit any 'economy" figures.
2 The total Indian Office appropriations of 1925 were $32,816,220 (Budget, p. 482) and all would naturally, and politically, come under education and relief” after taking Indian schools,'' but as the Brown plan mentions only the schools--which are many and scattered--the Indian Office was asked for figures for the Indian schools and bureau administration, which were given as $11,170,220, as above-but the new department once created would probably get the entire $32,816,220 a year for Indian affairs.
3 The total Veterans' Bureau appropriations for 1925, not including the soldiers' bonus, but including vocational rehabilitation, were $349,065,000 (Budget, 1926, p.104). But to give vocational rehabilitation appropriations, above, it was necessary to exclude them from the Veterans' Bureau total, making it $263,065,000 exclusive of both the bonus and vocational rehabilitation.